HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Peewee is Back (WAS Re: Education Regarding AFUs)
Date: 5 Jan 93 19:03:19 GMT
Organization: Astronomy Department, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA

In article <RyZwwB1w163w@peewee> peewee@infoserv.com (Philip Stromer) writes:

&>Why would anyone want to call himself a homosexual?  ... <eeewwww!>

&>What's more disgusting than seeing a naked man, except for seeing
&>a naked man with AIDS? ... <eeewwww!>

You must just HATE taking a shower then...even by yourself.

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

This has got to be the most hypocritical thing I've seen in a long
while.

The most STUPID thing I've seen, on the other hand, is the idolization
of PeeWee Herman by a heterosexist.

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: pmm7@ellis.uchicago.edu (peggy boucher murphy (you had to ask?))
Subject: Re: Bisexuality (was Re: [a long list of subjects])
Reply-To: pmm7@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 00:13:31 GMT

In article <1ht9o8INN7iv@hp-col.col.hp.com> smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes:
>ecl@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (Evelyn C. Leeper) writes:
>> It is a source of constant amazement to me that men who are attracted
>> to both blondes and brunettes have such difficulty with the concept that
>> bisexuals can be monogamous.
>
>That is why I used the wording "active", saying that the person 
>currently practiced bisexuality.  
>

walter, do you "practice" heterosexualtiy?  what about
straight celibate people?  

peg
-sighing at the amazing cluelessness of some poeple...
From: rlc1028@zeus.tamu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Please E-mail text of Colorado AntiGay Law
Date: 5 Jan 1993 19:16 CST
Organization: Texas A&M University, College Station, TX
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: zeus.tamu.edu

Title says all.  Please e-mail me the text of the CO Anti-Gay Ammendment.

Thanks

rlc1028@zeus.tamu.edu
From: kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Homosexuality as a religion--Fu** That!
Date: 12 Jan 93 17:55:55 GMT
Organization: Astronomy Department, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA

In article <1993Jan11.230920.1@vmsb.is.csupomona.edu>
cvafy006@vmsb.is.csupomona.edu (Daniel Rouse, Jr.) writes:

>HOMOSEXUALITY IN *HUMANS* IS *NOT* NATURAL!

What the hell are you babbling about?

>It is a FACT that most molestations occur by homosexual males.

Lie. BIG Lie. 95% of molesters molest little girls, usually
relatives, which is why it is kept hush-hush. The other 5% are
fixated, usually molest boys, have about 10 times more victims
on average than those who molest girls, and are usually strangers.

Hence they are the ones you hear about.

You don't have the full story.

>your mission to convert people to homosexuality and to make it an
>acceptable lifestyle will never work.

This is pure paranoid bullshit at its worst.

>						Sophomore

Evidently.

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: owen@autodesk.com (D. Owen Rowley)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Sexuality
Date: 5 Jan 93 19:29:01 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.homosexuality

In article <1993Jan4.230333.17538@asl.dl.nec.com>, dillhoff@aslws01.asl.dl.nec.com (Doug Dillhoff) writes:
> In article <1993Jan4.203640.22101@unet.net.com> stank@perrault.unet.com (Stan Knight) writes:
> >
> >The passages in Leviticus have come up many times. No where else(that I know)
> >does the Bible say bad things about gays. Of course Leviticus also tells you
> 
> Romans 1:26,27 is another passage concerning homosexuals.

Deuteronomy contains 20 or 30 pages of who you can fuck and who you can't
fuck.
It also contains lots of stuff about what varietys of burnt flessh god likes
on his altars.

> >wear clothing that is made from more then one type of material. Some seem to
> >think that using Leviticus as proof that "GOD hates homos" is o.k. but that
> 
> God does not 'hate' homosexuals. He 'hates' the lifestyle. That a
> woman desires a woman or a man desires a man (sexually).
> 
> If one of my children stole something from a store I would not 'hate'
> them, I would 'hate' the act of stealing.
 
Leviticus prescribes the death penalty for fabric mixers.
I could go on and on.

I hate  ignorant people who push their brand of revealed religion on 
people who aren't shopping for any.

LUX ./. owen

--
D. Owen Rowley {uunet,fernwood,sun}!autodesk!owen, owen@autodesk.com
[ EU-PHORIA: A STATE OF WELL BEING ]
Euphoria is my natural state, I do what I enjoy and an abundance 
of all good fortune comes to me for it.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari)
Subject: Re: Your own words, of course != bigot
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 02:24:26 GMT

In article <1it4hfINN75f@jethro.Corp.Sun.COM> barnesm@vavau.Corp.Sun.COM writes:
>In article 7747@wam.umd.edu, rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:
>>	On the other hand, I have been *asking*, repeatedly, for a good
>>	argument in favor of homosexuality...
>
>Why should anyone justify her/himself to *you*?


	And, of course, the standard idiotic answer.

	Why?  Because, perhaps, if you could come up with a valid
	argument, the assholes out there who findnothing wrong with gay 
	bashing would be inclined to stop.

	Sounds like a good reason to me.

-- 
      Blaming "society" for your problems is like blaming clouds for rain.
 ---  boycott == coercion == censorship == closed mindedness == cowardice  ---
	      "Psalms 23:1  The LORD is my shepherd; I shall not want."  
		Shepherds are for sheep.   -----      Pain teaches.
From: an104@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Ric Helton)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Telling me what it is I want....
Date: 12 Jan 1993 14:09:17 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: an104@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Ric Helton)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


Why is it that I always distrust people who tell me what it is I really
want?

-- 
 __
 \/ Ric       Graffiti BBS 404-972-4999  Atlanta, Georgia
    an104@cleveland.freenet.edu  =or=  ric@gnu.ai.mit.edu

Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,soc.motss
From: buckmr@rpi.edu (Ron Buckmire)
Subject: AP: St Pats Day Parade to Include Gays This Year
Date: Sat, 09 Jan 1993 18:14:46 EST
X-Received: by usenet.pa.dec.com; id AA03354; Sat, 9 Jan 93 15:15:22 -0800
X-Received: by inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com; id AA08912; Sat, 9 Jan 93 15:15:19 -0800
X-Received: from localhost (marcus.its.rpi.edu) by rpi.edu (4.1/SMHUB41);
	id AA18040; Sat, 9 Jan 93 18:14:44 EST for soc.motss.usenet@decwrl.dec.com
X-Received: by localhost (AIX 3.2/UCB 5.64/AIXV3-SUB16) via SMTP;
	id AA25086; Sat, 9 Jan 1993 18:14:46 -0500 for drum@concert.net
X-To: soc.motss.usenet
X-Cc: alt.politics.homosexuality.usenet, qn@queernet.org


From: Jason Lin <71043.1570@CompuServe.COM>

                   
  NEW YORK (AP) -- The city rebuffed an Irish-Catholic fraternal
society that has sponsored the St. Patrick's Day parade for 139 years
and awarded the 1993 permit to a group that promised to allow Irish
gays to march under their own banner.  
   Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly awarded the permit Friday to the
St. Patrick's Day Parade Committee, a newly organized group formed by
liberal Irish-Americans who are allies of Mayor David Dinkins.  
   The longtime sponsor, the Ancient Order of Hibernians, has been
embroiled in a bitter three-year struggle to prevent the Irish
Lesbian and Gay Organization from marching as an official group in
the March 17 parade.  
   The city's Human Rights Commission ruled last year that the parade
was not religious but secular, and therefore not entitled to
constitutional protections of association. The Hibernians are
challenging the ruling in state Supreme Court.  
   The Hibernians had told the gay group it could not march because
there was a long waiting list to get into the parade.  
   The new parade committee's chairman, Brian O'Dwyer, said, "We are
going to allow every group that was on the waiting list two years ago
to march.  
   "We promise the police commissioner and the people of New York we
will run a parade that will make them proud," he said.  
   Hibernian officials have said they have no objection to
homosexuals marching as individuals with other Irish groups, but that
they did not want them parading together with a banner. Homosexual
activity is considered sinful by the Roman Catholic Church.  
   In a statement, the mayor said "I am confident that we will
continue to move toward the goal of having a successful and inclusive
parade."  
   Frank Beirne, who had been chairman of the parade committee for
the past decade, said he had not heard that the permit had been
awarded yet, but said, "If it's true, Mayor Dinkins has a religious
war on his hands."  

   
---
RON BUCKMIRE, 11 Colvin Circle, Troy, NY 12180-3735. ``BOYCOTT COLORADO!'' 
uunet!rpi.edu!buckmr||buckmr@rpitsmts.bitnet||buckmr@rpi.edu||+1 518 276 8910
"Show me a Black man who is not bitter and I will show you a nigger in need of 
 psychiatric help." --James Baldwin.
From: barnesm@vavau.Corp.Sun.COM (Mark Barnes - SMCC/CTE)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Your own words, of course != bigot
Date: 12 Jan 93 18:45:08 GMT
Reply-To: barnesm@vavau.Corp.Sun.COM
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: vavau.corp.sun.com

In article 25252@wam.umd.edu, rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:
>In article <1it4hfINN75f@jethro.Corp.Sun.COM> barnesm@vavau.Corp.Sun.COM writes:
>>Why should anyone justify her/himself to *you*?
>
>	And, of course, the standard idiotic answer.
>	Why?  Because, perhaps, if you could come up with a valid
>	argument, the assholes out there who findnothing wrong with gay 
>	bashing would be inclined to stop.

Yeah, and if I could come up with a *valid* argument why Moslems should accept
Hindus and Hindus should accept Moslems I could stop the killing in India right
now, right?  Except that these things have nothing to do with reason.

No one needs to justify a world of peace and harmony.

Nope. *You* justify hatred, greed, envy...  and a world of hatred and violence.

>	Sounds like a good reason to me.

Not surprising, considering you're the one with the "standard idiotic answer".

--------------------------------+---------------------------------------
Mark Barnes, System Engineer    |  <insert standard disclaimers here>
SUN Microsystems Computer Corp. |
Corporate Technical Escalations |  I speak for myself, an individual,
Menlo Park, CA, USA             |  not for the company for which I work.
barnesm@vavau.Corp.Sun.COM      |
--------------------------------+---------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: peewee@infoserv.com (Philip Stromer)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Education Regarding Alternative Family Units (Re: The Analogy Be
Date: Tue, 05 Jan 93 09:33:38 PST
Distribution: world
Organization: Friends of Lenny Bruce

Why would anyone want to call himself a homosexual?  ... <eeewwww!>

What's more disgusting than seeing a naked man, except for seeing
a naked man with AIDS? ... <eeewwww!>

Oh no, I'm gonna hurl ... bbbllluuurrrggghhh.

HaPpY nEw YeAr everyone!

--Philip Stromer--

"If there's one thing worse than a right-wing, book-burning chauvinist,
it's a left-wing feminist one."

 -------------------------------------------------------------
|The PhilMeister, PRO HETERO and proud of it!!                |
|       **********         They call me homophobic,           |
|    ***          ***      They call me bigotted,             |
|  **<-------------****    They call me closed-minded,        |
| **  \          **** **   They call me intolerant,           |
|**    \      ****/    **  They blame me for their problems,  |
|**     \  ****  /     **  They cannot tolerate me,           |
|**     ****    /      **  They cannot respect me,            |
| ** **** \    /      **   They do not know me,               |
|  ****    \  /      **         yet they judge me.            |
|    ***    \/   ***                                          |
|       **********         They must be heterophobes!!        |
 -------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: albrigh@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (thomas g albright)
Subject: Re: Why the "argument from Nature" matters
Organization: Indiana University
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 22:26:20 GMT

In article <18330@autodesk.COM> owen@autodesk.com (D. Owen Rowley) writes:

>Sex is a technology by which the reproduction of the species is
>accomplished, but sex is also other things besides this.

Sex is not a technology.  We anthropologists define "technology" as
systems of energy and resource capture.

-Tom Albright
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: albrigh@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (thomas g albright)
Subject: Re: Gay Rights in Lafayette,IN
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 20:47:53 GMT

In article <t+02ht=@rpi.edu> buckmr@marcus.its.rpi.edu (Ron Buckmire) writes:
>
>Thanks for posting this! Keep us informed. Does Indiana have ANY municipality
>with a sexual orientation-inclusive Human Rights Ordinance?

Not yet.  No city in Indiana has a sexual orientation rights ordinance.

-Tom Albright
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari)
Subject: Re: Lifestyle Choices
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 18:43:14 GMT

In article <1993Jan6.173714.27837@news.ysu.edu> ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller) writes:
>glen@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Glen Sonnenberg) writes:
>> I saw a show on PBS that showed an example of gang rape in a certain species
>> of whales.  Three whales trap a female and each take turns having sex with
>> her.  Does this mean that we should accept gang rape "because it is seen
>> in nature"?
>>
>
>No, moron.  The idea in saying homosexuality occurs in nature is in resopnse
>to those who decide homosexuality is not natural on the grounds that animals
>do not enguage in it.  The subject of animals enguaging in gang rape has no
>berring on that.
>
>Unless, of course, you intend to broaden the arguement against homosexuality
>by comparing it to gang-rape, as it has been compared to child molestation,
>beastiality, necrophilia, ect.

	Ah, you prove my point for me.  We see all sorts of abberations
	in small quantities in animals at large (incest, rape, gang rape,
	murder, theivery, necrophilia, cannibalism)--so we conclude that
	these are freakish occurances.  

	The argument is that "homosexuality is natural because we
	seeitin animals"--well, cancer is natural, too.  So is Downs
	Syndrome.  

	The whole point in bringing up these other examples of animal behavior
	is to show what a downright pin-headed argument the animals
	argument (pro-homosexuality) really is.


-- 
      Blaming "society" for your problems is like blaming clouds for rain.
 ---  boycott == coercion == censorship == closed mindedness == cowardice  ---
	      "Psalms 23:1  The LORD is my shepherd; I shall not want."  
		Shepherds are for sheep.   -----      Pain teaches.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.homosexuality:9264 alt.rush-limbaugh:13497 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:12087 alt.politics.clinton:19980 alt.politics.bush:15766
From: smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Special Rights for Heterosexuals (Re: Text of the CO Gay Discrimination Provisions Ammendment)
Date: 10 Jan 1993 00:59:18 GMT
Organization: Colorado Springs IT Center
NNTP-Posting-Host: fajita19.cs.itc.hp.com

mike@gordian.com (Michael A. Thomas) writes:
> There is a huge difference in whether
> a state permits immoral behavior vs a state which *promotes* immoral
> behavior. 

*Promotes* immoral behavior?  How?  I must have missed the billboards 
promoting bashing...oh, you mean they promote it by permitting it? 

I'm not trying to be a smartass to you; but I do not see where there 
is any 'promotion' of immoral behavior.  And I see no difference in 
practicality between Colorado and other states with no sexual orientation 
policies.  People _can_, and indeed _have_, been fired in other states 
for being gay; Cracker barrel being an example.   

>   You have legalized a climate which says it's OK to discriminate
> against gays and lesbians -- go right ahead we won't blink while
> it hypocritically would prosecute anybody who did the same thing
> for religious reasons.

Again, this is the same situation in other states that have religion 
in their anti-discrimination policy, and not sexual orientation.  No 
difference, as Cracker Barrel showed. 

>   Wouldn't you say that South Africa with it Aparthied policies
> is several rungs down the ladder to hell then say the US which
> has discrimination against blacks but certainly not legalized
> or promoted discrimination?

Sure.  But many other states have the same situation; their 
policies cover religion, but not sexual orientation.  Just like 
Colorado.  

>   Well as someone else pointed out, there is a great difference between
> a sin of omission and a sin of commission. Colorado has done the latter.
> Not to say that other states wouldn't have necessarily done the same;
> the fact remains that Colorado was brazen enough to become the first.

In practice, a sin of omission has the same result.  Either way, the 
bad thing happens.  The sin of commission may generate more emotional 
outrage, and makes a more convenient target, but in practice, the 
outcome is the same.  

>   One actual difference is that a court in that state could hold
> the company liable through application of other anti-discimination
> laws (which I believe is the case here in Ca wrt housing, or so
> says Gov Wilson). The same case would be throw out in Colorado
> given Co2.

You totally lost me there.  A state has no law that covers sexual 
orientation; a person gets fired for sexual orientation.  So the 
state is going to find some other law to cover them, since they 
can't legally use sexual orientation? 

Walter
From: smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Sexuality
Date: 6 Jan 1993 12:21:37 GMT
Organization: Colorado Springs IT Center
NNTP-Posting-Host: fajita19.cs.itc.hp.com

owen@autodesk.com (D. Owen Rowley) writes:
> In article <1993Jan4.230333.17538@asl.dl.nec.com>, dillhoff@aslws01.asl.dl.nec.com (Doug Dillhoff) writes:
> > Romans 1:26,27 is another passage concerning homosexuals.
> 
> I hate  ignorant people who push their brand of revealed religion on 
> people who aren't shopping for any.
> 
> LUX ./. owen

Owen, somebody *asked* for other passages that mentioned homosexuality. 

Walter

Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: greg_bradt@msmgate.mrg.uswest.com (Greg Bradt aka The Lensman)
Subject: Re: Gay marriage
XXXDate: Fri, 8 Jan 93 19:41:31 GMT
XUserAgent: Nuntius v1.1.1d16
XXXMessageID: <A77326FB6F020614@greg_bradt.mrg.uswest.com>
Organization: US West Marketing Resources
NntpPostingHost: greg_bradt.mrg.uswest.com
Date: 08 Jan 93 19:42:07 GMT

In article <1204@bug.UUCP> Steven R Fordyce, stevef@bug.UUCP writes:
>What is the purpose of legal marriage?  That is the question you have to
>answer first before you can deal with any of the above.  There is only one
>justification for the legal institution of marriage: children.  History and
>recent experience shows that on average the best way to raise children, to
>socialize them and pass our culture on to them, is in intact families with
>the mother and father present.  This is not to run down single parents or
>other arrangements, it is just a fact.  Therefore society has a profound
>interest in promoting marriage and keeping them together.  In fact, I don't
>think we are doing nearly enough.*  Society simply has no like interest in
>keeping homosexual couples together.

In most of your post I found little to disagree with.  However, the above
paragraph overlooks some important points in the issue of the mature of
marriage in our society.

For one thing, there is the issue of adoption.  With the number of
parentless children, society needs responsible people willing to shoulder
the burden of raising them.  Gays are just as loving and caring, and just as
capable or taking on that challenge.

However, marriage is much more than a union with the intent to raise
children.  That is merely one aspect of it.  People also marry to form a
emotional, social and financial alliance.  Society recognizes this alliance
in a number of ways.  For one, we provide both with benefits when one member
is employed.  There is no ethical reason for denying these benefits from
couples that happen to be of the same sex, yet we continue to do so.

Society's overriding interest in marriage is not procreation, but the fact
that it helps to stabalize our social structure.  Childrearing is one, but
only one aspect of that.

Greg Bradt aka ()The Lensman()

greg_bradt@msmgate.mrg.uswest.com | Freedom means sometimes
Genie: G.BRADT                    | having to put up with
Compuserve: 70206,172             | things that really
BBS: (303)290 9243                | piss you off.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.homosexuality:9126 alt.rush-limbaugh:13221 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:11824