HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org (Mike A. McAngus)
Subject: Re: Sexuality
Organization: Homebrew Virtual Reality Labs
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Wed, 06 Jan 1993 02:19:26 GMT

[alt.politics.bush and alt.politics.clinton deleted because the editor I use
can't handle long lines.  Soon I will have a node at my house and I will use a
better editor]

Stan Knight (stank@perrault.unet.com) wrote:
: In article <1993Jan04.182739.106978@zeus.calpoly.edu> jkusters@zeus.calpoly.e
du (Chrome Jester) writes:
: >Well, I take *slight* exception to this assertation.  I have read the bible
: >several times cover to cover, a couple of different versions.  I have read
: >it from the atheists point of view.  Now, in several readings of this book,
: >I have come across references in Leviticus that says that men who lie with
: >men as with women should be put to death (something about them being an
: >abomination).  If this is not encouragement of persecution, I don't know
: >what is.
:
: >Or is Leviticus no longer considered part of the bible?
:
: >JOhn.
:
: 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
: what kind of bugs to eat(Eaten any bugs lately?)and that it is a sin to
: 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
: the latter verses are "inconsistent with our times".(I've been personally tol
d
: this) I am curouis about this guy Leviticus. Does anyone have background info
: on him? What he says about gays does not seem to jive with the teachings of
: Jesus, as I understand them.

"The name 'Leviticus' was bestowed on the third book of the Pentateuch by the
ancient Greek translators because a good part of this book consists of
sacrificial and other ritual laws prescribed for the priests of the tribe of
Levi."  From the preface to the Chapter "Leviticus" in _The New American
Bible_.
-- 
Mike McAngus                    |You are a fluke of the Universe.  You have no 
mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org            |right to be here, and whether you can hear it
The Truth is still the Truth    |or not the Universe is laughing behind your 
Even if you choose to ignore it.|back.  -- National Lampoon, Deteriorata
From: owen@autodesk.com (D. Owen Rowley)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: APA and Homosexuality
Date: 7 Jan 93 19:27:59 GMT

In article <1993Jan7.081323.6043@genie.slhs.udel.edu>, starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr) writes:
> }> the society of Socrates and Aristotle was one of the more pro-reason ones,
> }> wouldn't you?
> }
> }be careful with that one, the Athenians held their women in almost
> }total slavery. 
> 
> Not quite, at least according to Kitto's "The Greeks."

Well, they didn't call it slavery, but in effect the way they treated their
women amounted to the same thing.

A married woman could not leave her home without her husbands permission,
nor could she allow another man to be in her presense without her husband
also present.  the roles allowed to women were stricktly defined, and
very much revolved around the sexual dynamic.

> }A better example is the Ancient Celts, who had no proscriptions against
> }homosexuality one way or the other.
> 
> Good example.  Thanks!  However, since Objectivists idolize Aristotle, I
> thought I'd point out that he and the rest of his buddies had the alleged
> "sickness" Grossman was talking about.

Having become a fan, and imperfect practitioner of E-prime, Aristotelian
methodolgy has lost its luster for me. :-)

BTW, the morals of the celts *shocked* roman sensibilitys :-)


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.
From: rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: God is intolerant of sin!
Date: 11 Jan 93 15:00:28 GMT
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park

In article <C0oq7H.7oE@unix.amherst.edu> jmfuchs@unix.amherst.edu (jesse fuchs) writes:
>My favorite quotes from the Bible:
>"To the woman God said: 'I will greatly multiply your pain in
>childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children, yet your desire shall
>be your husbandm and he shall rule over you.'"
>Genesis 3:16


	Or, in the King James: (Prettier than the revised Std. edition)

	Genesis [3:16]:  Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy 
	sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth 
	children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall 
	rule over thee.


>"For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man
>created for woman, but woman for man. That is why a woman ought to have a veil
>on her head, because of the angels."
>1 Corinthians 11:8,9


	Likewise:

	Corinthians [11:8-12]: 

	For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man.
	Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.
	For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because 
	of the angels.

	Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither 
	the woman without the man, in the Lord.
	For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by 
	the woman; but all things of God.

	Oo, and a doozy:

	Corinthians [11:13]:

	Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto 
	God uncovered?

	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:


	Corinthians [6:9]:

	Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the 
	kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor 
	idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of 
	themselves with mankind.   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


	And one more, for the ladies:

	Corinthians [11:15]:

	But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for 
	her hair is given her for a covering.


	I have all sorts of this stuff in my .plan to offset my xtian
	fellow students.



-- 
      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: hjanules@hamp.hampshire.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Lesbian Nuns
Date: 12 Jan 93 15:14:33 EDT
Organization: Hampshire College
NNTP-Posting-Host: hamp.hampshire.edu

Regarding lesbian nuns,
	There is a book called Immodest Acts by someone named ? Brown (I think)
that discusses the life of an Italian nun who was tried for such crimes against
nature and her "visions from God".  This book and subject matter was used in Su
Freidrich's amazing alternative film Damned if You Don't.  I hope this can
help.

							Fezzer
From: quilty@titan.ucc.umass.edu (Humberto Humbertoldi)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Text of the CO Gay Discrimination Provisions Ammendment
Date: 9 Jan 1993 00:08:42 -0500
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst
NNTP-Posting-Host: titan.ucc.umass.edu

In article <1993Jan7.224634.19690@cbnewsh.cb.att.com> josh@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (joshua.h.rosenbluth) writes:

>Finally, just because a trait (eye color, handedness, status as a
>student) is omitted in an anti-discrimination ordinance, does that give
>carte blanche to landlords to practice such discrimination?  Isn't there
>some burden on the landlord to show a reasonable basis for discrimination?
>If there is such a burden, then even in the cities in Colorado that do not
>explicitly prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation,
>heterosexuals are implicitly protected and bi/homosexuals are not because
>of the ammendment.

Actually, this is exactly wrong.  A landlord/employer/etc. has
*complete* LEGAL freedom to discriminate on the basis of eye-color,
handedness, or anything else she likes -- as long as it's not race,
sex, religion, national origin, or some other explicitly protected
category.  It ain't pretty, but that's the law.  I suppose, however,
if some other thing could be shown to be a clear proxy for a protected
category, it might still constitute illegal discrimination (i.e. an
employer hiring only blue-eyed employees might be considered thereby
specifically to discriminate against blacks).


-- 
    _/_/_/_/ 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: rossco@iastate.edu (Ross Stenersen)
Subject: Re: Quotas
Keywords: homosexual civil rights politics
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames, IA
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 01:27:18 GMT

In article <palane.726195016@pv7405.vincent.iastate.edu> palane@iastate.edu (Paul A. Lane) writes:
>With all the discussion about civil rights and gays, I thought I'd note
>a recent occurance here at Iowa State University. It was recently proposed
>(though not enacted0 that there be a set on the student government body
>set aside for a gay or lesbian individual. (I guess I should say openly
>gay or lesbian individual.)
>
>While it never went anywhere, had it I most likely would have objected.
>Why? Among other reasons, given the size of the GSB, there are almost

Paul, the last I heard this was going to go up for the student body to vote
on it in April 1993.  It isn't dead yet.  (btw, I am for it.)

Rossco
rossco@iastate.edu
From: smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: 3 Cheers for Colorado "Extremists"
Date: 7 Jan 1993 21:52:09 GMT
Organization: Colorado Springs IT Center
NNTP-Posting-Host: fajita19.cs.itc.hp.com

thumim@nevada.edu (Scrooge McDuck) writes:
> Otherwise, the "heterosexual, white
> majority" would have everyone who is not like them removed from
> society, ala Hitler and the Nazis.

That explains why the "heterosexual, white majority" in the US 
went to war against Hitler and the Nazis...

This sort of attitude, that all the "white-male-hetros" are 
like Nazis is as much bigotry as what you rail against.  

Walter
From: barnesm@vavau.Corp.Sun.COM (Mark Barnes - SMCC/CTE)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Berserk Sex Maniacs (was  Re: Lifestyl
Date: 12 Jan 1993 00:39:14 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Distribution: world
Reply-To: barnesm@vavau.Corp.Sun.COM
NNTP-Posting-Host: vavau.corp.sun.com

In article 18556@galileo.physics.arizona.edu, krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
>Jeez!  How 'bout if we simply agree that humans cannot learn morals from 
>watching animals?

Jeez! How 'bout if we simply realize that "morality" is an agreed-upon human-invented
concept in the first place, and all these attempts to learn "morality" which is supposedly
inherent in the existance in which we find ourselves are excercises in futility?

The world as we experience it simply is.  We can like or dislike it as we will. Then we silly
humans attempt to justify our prejudices by inventing some odd concept called "morality",
and use said "morality" in a selfish attempt to force the world to change into  something we
like better, doing our best to convince everybody (including ourselves) that we didn't invent
it, but that it was invented by the gods.  We then huddle with mobs of people we have found
to share our prejudices, either from personal preference or through brain-washing or threats of
dire consequences, and try to inflict our "morality" on everybody else.

--------------------------------+---------------------------------------
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      |
--------------------------------+---------------------------------------

Xref: sparky alt.politics.homosexuality:9250 alt.rush-limbaugh:13480 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:12072 alt.politics.clinton:19966 alt.politics.bush:15757
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: 9 Jan 1993 21:23:10 GMT
Organization: Colorado Springs IT Center
NNTP-Posting-Host: fajita19.cs.itc.hp.com

mike@gordian.com (Michael A. Thomas) writes:
>   The same difference as de facto segregation and de jure segregation;
> the latter being a far more reprehensible and odious pronouncement.
> Legalized privilege (or debasement) is several rungs down the ladder
> to hell as it tries to give an odor of legal morality to that which 
> otherwise stinks like shit.

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? 

Walter
 

Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller)
Subject: Re: Lifestyle Choices
Reply-To: ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller)
Organization: St. Elizabeth Hospital, Youngstown, OH
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 17:37:14 GMT






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.

 
-- 
*...your Friendly Neighborhood Atheist  /\/\   These are the REAL  *         
*  ae642@yfn.ysu.edu/Kelley L. Miller  / /__\      Gay 90's!!      *           
*-------------------------------------/____\-----------------------*  
***************** Oxymoron: Freewill Christianity ******************
From: jym@mica.berkeley.edu (Jym Dyer)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: [Christian] religion and homosexuality
Date: 5 Jan 93 02:17:48 GMT
Organization: The Naughty Peahen Party Line
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu

> [A lesbian friend] has never had a lover.  The reason is
> because she is also a very devout Lutheran, and is having a
> great deal of difficulty reconciling her attraction to women
> with what the Bible and her church have to say about it.

=o= I would recommend John Boswell's _Christianity,_
_Homosexuality,_and_Social_Tolerance_ to anyone interested
in Christianity, homosexuality, or history.  Boswell is a
professor of history at Yale.

=o= The book is an incredible scholastic achievement:  I've
never read any history books by *anybody* that's been so
well-researched.  It's also absolutely readable.

=o= The book traces the rise of social intolerance in the
early Christian religion, particularly with respect to
homosexuality.  It makes the case that this intolerance
arose quite late in the game -- in the 13th Century --
and thus does not have its roots in Scripture or in most
of the original practice of Christianity.
    <_Jym_>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: jmfuchs@unix.amherst.edu (jesse fuchs)
Subject: Re: God is intolerant of sin!
Organization: Amherst College
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL7]
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 10:23:41 GMT

	My favorite quotes from the Bible:

	"To the woman God said: 'I will greatly multiply your pain in
childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children, yet your desire shall
be your husbandm and he shall rule over you.'"
		Genesis 3:16

	"For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man
created for woman, but woman for man. That is why a woman ought to have a veil
on her head, because of the angels."
		1 Corinthians 11:8,9

-jesse "Now I understand why Lucifer rebelled in the first place" fuchs

--

"Where imagination is sucked out of children by a cathode ray nipple
 T.V. is the only wet nurse that would create a cripple
 On television, the drug of a nation
 Breeding ignorance and feeding radiation."
				-Disposable Heroes of Hiphoprisy
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From:  (Jody Norman)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Sexuality
Date: 7 Jan 93 18:43:31 GMT
Followup-To: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Arizona UNIX Users Group

In article <1993Jan1.150532.19814@ux1.cts.eiu.edu>, cfthb@ux1.cts.eiu.edu
(Howard Black) wrote:
> 
> In article <1i003kINNf0j@hp-col.col.hp.com> smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes:
> >> For many
> >> sex and morality seem to be one. 
> >
> >Not exactly "one", but linked together by the sanctity of life, and the 
> >way life is created. 
> 
>     I don't see the correlation here at all, unless you're one of the "sex
> is only for procreation" types.  If you are, we'll just have to agree to
> disagree on this one.
> 
> >I have sex with my neighbor's wife; we've both consented to it with 
> >each other, no one's twisting my arm or hers; immoral? 
> 
>     No, according to the morals of the involved people.  In fact, I'd be
> interested in a logical argument that it is immoral, without resort to the
> biblebook or other religious dicta.
> 
> >Hmmmm...that's what I thought it still was; enjoyed responsibly between 
> >married people. 
> 
>     Why do they need to be married?  Again, please no religion-based
> arguments, just a logical assertion of what harm is done to the consenting
> adults or others.
> 
> >Cocaine makes people feel real good.  Is it good?  And typical people 
> 
>     Can be.  Many people don't think cocaine is 'bad', only when it is
> misused [sic].
> 
> >don't think sex is 'bad', only when it is misused. 
> 
>     I don't agree that typical people don't think sex is inherently
> something negative.  Why don't people discuss their sex lives as casually
> as their golf games?  "It's no one else's business?"  Please... neither is
> your golf score, and humans' sex lives are far more important to them than
> golf (except for Quayle, of course ;-) ).
> -- 
>    ******************************************************************
>      Howard Black                             cfthb@ux1.cts.eiu.edu
>      Department of Chemistry                  Eastern Illinois Univ. 


I wish to state, right now, that this comment is **not** meant to be a
flame or incitement to one.  I like calm, rational discussions, not
shouting matches.  But this is a question that's beginning to make me
wonder.  Simply stated, it's this: it often seems to me that, underneath
the flames between you and Walter, Howard, the same basic ideas and
feelings are often expressed, with some minor exceptions (or, I see them as
minor, anyway).  Now, maybe I'm just reading you both all wrong, but I've
read every post in this conference for the last three weeks, so, please,
could one or preferably both of you explain these differenceds to me?  I'd
really appreciate it.

Wondering,

Jody
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: mykes@shell.portal.com (mike myke schwartz)
Subject: Re: Special Rights for Heterosexuals (Re: Text of the CO Gay Discrimination Provisions Ammendment)
Followup-To: alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Organization: Portal Communications Company
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL7]
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 10:20:29 GMT

Walter Smith (smithw@col.hp.com) wrote:
: 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.   
: 

Just to butt in for a tic :)

Why is there a double standard here?  Permitting is not promoting, right?
Then why not permit a manger at city hall or voluntary prayer in school?

Cheers :)
From: kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Why the "argument from Nature" matters
Date: 11 Jan 93 16:37:12 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Astronomy Department, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA

In article <1993Jan8.225211.12744@galileo.physics.arizona.edu>
glen@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Glen Sonnenberg) writes:

>If I don't like what types of behavior someone engages in, I should be
>allowed to not hire them.  I shouldn't be forced to accept this as an
>alternative lifestyle.

I agree completely. It's too bad, however, that people like you never
seem to manage to vocalize their reasons for disliking homosexuality.
Such dislike seems to me to be a sacred cow, not to be questioned.

>Why is it that people who want to engage in unpopular activities feel 
>that they MUST be accepted by the rest of society? 

I think its a universal human quality, not confined to those who
"engage in unpopular activities". For instance, I'll bet you conform to
norms to win acceptance, don't you?
Xref: sparky alt.politics.homosexuality:9180 alt.rush-limbaugh:13294
From: teddybur@netcom.com (John Sanger)
Subject: Re: Your own words, of course != bigot
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 09:50:31 GMT

In article <1993Jan12.022426.25252@wam.umd.edu> rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:
>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.
>
>-- 

Who placed you above all others that anyone should justify themselves to
*you*?



Ciao!
	John S. :^)
	teddybur@netcom.com
__

Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,comp.org.eff.talk,alt.amateur-comp,soc.culture.usa,alt.activism