HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cjohnson@mari.acc-admin.stolaf.edu (Carrie L Johnson)
Subject: Lobbying Involvement
Summary: Getting involved in lobbying organizations
Keywords: Queer Nation, ACT UP, etc..
Organization: St. Olaf College; Northfield, MN
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 16:30:09 GMT

Does anyone know the easiest way to get involved in queer rights 
lobbying work....I'm interested in doing what i can in whatever...
i hail from MN so if anyone knows how i can contact people here...
let me know (will just calling the GLCAC work?) I'm also interested
in looking into Queer Nation and ACT-UP, plus any others you may suggest..

So anyone know how to get involved?

thanks, respond publically or privatly whichever
Have a great day,
Carrie

(Unfortunatly the views i express here, may or may not be the views held
by members of the administration here at St.Olaf College)

Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: LYLE
Subject: Oregon Contingent - March on Washington '93
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 23:28:21 GMT
Organization: OGL-CRC

Oregon is determined to show up in large numbers for the 1993 March on
Washington.  We have booked blocks of rooms and are currently negotiating group
air fares.  To ensure your reservations, please contact Wayne Boulette at
223-4585 or outside Portland at 800-637-3874 with a $50 room deposit and $15
March on Washington registration fee.


Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: manz@ee.ualberta.ca (Brett {Druid Queen} Manz)
Subject: Re: Is sexuality chosen or inborn? A users guide.
Organization: University Of Alberta, Edmonton Canada
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 09:16:49 GMT

In <1992Dec31.023656.13340@bsu-ucs> d000dlphi@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu (David Speakman) writes:

>Preference vs. Orientation vs. Behavior
>Can people choose these things??
>let's set some ground rules.

>Sexual orientation (the biological, uncontrollable attraction to another) is
>inherent.

>Sexual Preference (the desire for a particular behavior pattern) is a the
>product of societal conditioning.

>Sexual Behavior (the actions taking in expressing sexuality) is chosen
>individually.

>The three concepts are interrelated, but totally separate in practice and can
>be in any combination of known sexualities.

This kinda reminds me of my standard response to the whole 
sexual orientation/sexual preference/lifestyle terminology debate:

	Gay is my *orientation.  My *preference is oral.
	My lifestyle is subject to whims and bank balance.

I have to agree with Elf that orientation is not *always an
inherent feature.  It was in my case, but I do know some
people who conciously chose to alter their sexuality.
Usually in terms of expanding it to include motss, but
occasionally in terms of excluding motos.
-- 
---------------------------------+-------------------------------------
 My opinions are my own.         |  You can't be proud of who you are
 The truth belongs to everyone.  |  if you're ashamed of what you are.
   I can't even *think straight! |    Cruise Men, Not Missiles! - anon
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: TWISTED LOGIC!
Date: 22 Dec 92 14:35:07 GMT
Reply-To: Leonard.Erickson@f51.n105.z1.fidonet.org
Organization: SCN Research/Qic Laboratories of Tigard, Oregon.

crr4574@zeus.tamu.edu (LARUE, CHARLES L.) writes:

>     Another example of this which comes to mind is the study which said that 
>roughly 10% of the population is gay.  I do not have this article, but I would
>like to read it.  I cannot imagine any place in the country where 10% of the 
>people are gay.  I probably know several thousand people and I know damn well 
>10% of them aren't gay.  I know several who are but I would say no more than
>1%.  Do any of you actually believe this 10% figure?  If you do, I would have
>to say move back to reality and out of la-la land.  

Do you know anything about Statistics. Specifly, they ways in which a sample
of a population can have quite different characteristics than those of the
population as a whole?

Since the 10% is an *average* for the *entire* population, there are going
to be places with lower percentages and with higher. (more of the former
than the latter, given they way numbers work.

As a good example of what's wrong with your reasoning, look up the racial
breakdown of the US. Find out what percentage of the population is black.
I'd be *very* surprised if the percentage of blacks in the "several
thousand" people you know is anywhere *close* to that figure! This is known
as "variance". 

And If you know "several thousand" people, that means that your 1% is
"several tens" how are gay. 10% would be several hundred. I rather doubt
that you know several *hundred* people well enough that any except the
most "out" would let you know they were gay or bi.

And don't forget, the 10% includes *bi*-sexuals. It also includes people
who even if they knew you would not *dream* of letting you find out that
they were attracted to their own sex. What percentage of the people
you know *well* are gay. That'd be closer, unless you are vocal about
thinking gays are "wrong".

For that matter, out of all the people you know, how many can you 
tag as to what religion they practice? How many of those are members
of your own church? Gays and bis have *less* reason to let folks know
what they are than the average person has of letting folks know which
church he belongs to.

Being openly gay in many parts of this country isn't a lot safer than
being a heretic during the Inquistion. And many people feel that they
*shouldn't* have these feelings and do their best to supress them. 
But that doesn't change the fact that they have them.

-- 
Leonard Erickson		      leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com
CIS: [70465,203]			 70465.203@compuserve.com
FIDO:   1:105/51	 Leonard.Erickson@f51.n105.z1.fidonet.org
(The CIS & Fido addresses are preferred)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: zbdm0c@curry.trc.amoco.com (Brian D. Moe)
Subject: Re: TWISTED LOGIC!
Reply-To: bmoe@trc.amoco.com
Organization: Amoco Production Research
	<21DEC199211565333@venus.tamu.edu>
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 16:22:23 GMT


In article <21DEC199211565333@venus.tamu.edu> crr4574@venus.tamu.edu (LARUE, CHARLES L.) writes:
> In article <1gu05dINN15b@mizar.usc.edu>, adolphso@mizar.usc.edu (adolphson) writes...
>
>> And move where?  *Texas*?  I'd rather set myself on fire
>> than live in Texas.
>
> Texas is not so bad.  You wouldn't like it in College Station
> because the gay community, I believe, is pretty small.  Austin on
> the other hand, reputedly has a much larger one.

I've heard it said by both rednecks and, ah, non-rednecks
that Austin isn't _in_ Texas, it's _surrounded_ by Texas.

Sadly, Tulsa and Oklahoma do not have a similar relationship.
From: peewee@infoserv.com (Philip Stromer)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: to Howard Black a.k.a Mr. Chemistry (Re: WHY?)
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 92 23:15:15 PST
Distribution: world
Organization: Friends of Lenny Bruce

        >You're one of the only heterosexual people I know that's 
        >enough of a jerk to post the crap we've seen from you.  
        
Don't forget about ME.        

        >But you seem to think that when we insult you, we are 
        >insulting all heterosexuals.  
        
You are, because homosexuality is ... eeewwww!!!        

        >Yep, it's true.  Just like djk, the Zekester is basically 
        >unable to read.  
        
Maybe so, but he sure can WRITE !!!        

        >Here on alt.politics.homosexuality people have repeatedly said
        >that most gay people did _not_ choose to be gay, and 
        >can _not_ choose _not_ to be gay.  
        
What, were they FORCED to be gay?  Did someone hold a gun to their        
head and say, "pretend we're in Deliverance, and SQUEAL?!"

        >All psychological studies agree that sexual orientation is in 
        >most cases not a voluntary choice 
        
Psychology is a bunch of baloney.  It's just an excuse for the mentally        
FEEBLE to pretend they're acceptable, when they're really LEMONS.  The
epitome of political correctness.  Be a basket case, and instead of
being lampooned, you're put on a pedestal as "mentally challenged".

Bllluuuurrrggghhh!!!  Excuse me, I need to wipe up the vomit.

        >Could you, Zekester, choose not to be straight?

Why should he, when there's so many good looking BABES out there?!

        >When did you choose to be straight?  
        
Uh, after I saw Jamie Lee Curtis' huge HOOTERS in the movie "Perfect"?        

        >You simply do not know what the fuck you are talking about.

Gee, how lovely...you know how to use profanity.  Turn me on!

        >And whether or _not_ homosexuality is a choice for any 
        >particular person,

...is really irrelevant, because it's so...so...so EEEWWWW!!!

        >why _should_ they choose not to be homosexual?  
        
Uh, because it greatly reduces their chance of contracting AIDS?        

        >What are the _exact reasons_ homosexuality is inferior to 
        >heterosexuality as a sexual orientation?

o AIDS
o Popularity
o Good-looking chicks
o Reproduction
o Coolness
o Feel free to add anything else that comes to mind

        >People like you are why the Republican Party lost so badly 
        >this year, and why it will continue to lose badly unless it 
        >disavows the PRO HETEROs.

Screw the Republicans.  I hate anyone that hates free speech.  That's
almost as bad as being (eeewwww!!!) homosexual.  The Libertarians are
the only party I'd trust with my precious vote.

        >we pick your arguments to pieces 
        
Only because you can't pick his doo-doo to pieces.  Har har har !!!

--Philip Stromer (peewee@infoserv.com)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: cfthb@ux1.cts.eiu.edu (Howard Black)
Subject: Re: Raises a new question (Re: Is sexuality chosen or inborn?)
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 15:10:06 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Eastern Illinois University

In article <31DEC199221142256@zeus.tamu.edu> olw7845@zeus.tamu.edu (Zeke E. Pez) writes:
>
>        How come I see no attempts to define _consenting adults_ with respect
>        to homosexual behaviour.  This qualifier is seems to be a weak attempt
>        to say that Heteros, and Homos are the only allowable _sexual
>	orientations_ thus implies the ability to discriminate against other
>        "alternative" _sexual orientations_ such as bestiality, necrophilia,
>        and most of all pedophilia. I wonder what label a person would have
>        if his _orientation_ is "makin' luv" to a beehive?? And would (or
>        should) this _orientation_ be protected by law??

    Only if it's being discriminated against.

    My problem with people being sexual with children or animals is that
its consensuality is very suspect.  As for necrophilia, it's not for me,
but that's as far as my concern goes.

>        Is doin' a beehive a preference or orientation?
>        How could one decide what to protect, preference or orientation, or
>        both with respect to anti-discrimination laws?

    For me, the criterion is whether it's consensual and whether no one is
harmed.
-- 
   ******************************************************************
     Howard Black                             cfthb@ux1.cts.eiu.edu
     Department of Chemistry                  Eastern Illinois Univ. 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: greg_bradt@msmgate.mrg.uswest.com (Greg Bradt)
Subject: Re: Sexuality
XXXDate: Thu, 31 Dec 92 18:30:46 GMT
XUserAgent: Nuntius v1.1.1d16
XXXMessageID: <A7688A664F040614@greg_bradt.mrg.uswest.com>
Organization: US West Marketing Resources
NntpPostingHost: greg_bradt.mrg.uswest.com
Date: 31 Dec 92 18:32:04 GMT

In article <1992Dec30.191743.7958@asl.dl.nec.com> Doug Dillhoff,
dillhoff@aslws01.asl.dl.nec.com writes:
>Homosexual sex uses a human output device (waste
>disposal) as an input device. This is not natural and therefore
>should not be considered normal and should not be taught as an
>alternate lifestyle. 

Momosexual sex is just as natural as the myriad of other "unnatural" things
we, as humans, do in the course of manipulating and changing our
environment.  We wear the hides of other animals, we cut down trees and
reform them into objects of convenience, we travel into space and below the
sea where the environment is unnatural to us... the list is endless.

In the face of all this, which is fundamental human nature, you have the
gall to condemn someone for using something for other than it's "natural"
purpose, simply because you personally find it offensive?  I find =that=
attitude rather offensive, myself.

Greg Bradt aka ()The Lensman()

greg_bradt@msmgate.mrg.uswest.com | 
Genie: G.BRADT                    |   having to put up with
Compuserve: 70206,172             |   things that really
BBS: (303)290 9243                |   piss you off.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,soc.motss
From: elf@halcyon.com (Elf Sternberg)
Subject: Re: GOOD NEWS: St. Louis Law
Originator: elf@halcyon.com
Organization: Pendor, UnLtd.
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 22:59:05 GMT

In article <30DEC199202252599@zeus.tamu.edu>
     olw7845@zeus.tamu.edu (Zeke E. Pez) writes:

>Its good to know that all of our brothers and sisters that are 
>Homosexuals,Necrophiles, Pedophiles, and *Bestia-philes*
>are included in this anti-discrimination legislation.

>Am I making too much sense??

   Not at all, Zeke.  Makes perfect sense to me.  I've never disagreed
with you on this-- sexual orientation is sexual orientation.
Discrimination on that basis is irrational.

         Elf !!!
--
elf@halcyon.com  (Elf Sternberg)

Then, I was inspired.               God, thy will is hard
Now, I'm sad and tired.             But you hold every card.
Listen, surely I've exceeded        I will drink your cup of poison.
Expectations.                       Nail me to your cross and break me.
Tried for three years,              Bleed me, beat me.
Seems like thirty.                  Kill me.
Could you ask as much               Take me now.
From any other man?                 Before I change my mind.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: pmm7@ellis.uchicago.edu (peggy boucher murphy (you had to ask?))
Subject: Re: Education Regarding Alternative Family Units (Re: The Analogy Betwixt Gays & Blacks (Re: Children in Same-gender Families))
Reply-To: pmm7@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 00:59:31 GMT

In article <1hddgtINNasc@hp-col.col.hp.com> smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes:
>twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce) writes:
>> It's important for the book to say "it's all right for a family to
>> have two gay adults of the same sex."
>
>To a first grader, what do you feel the difference in message would 
>be between the first and the 2nd example?   ie, to a 1st grader,  
>what differences would they grasp between 2 adults who care a lot 
>about each other, but have seperate rooms, vs. 2 adults who care 
>a lot about each other, but go to sleep together at night? 

to a first grader whose two moms or dads go to sleep 
together at night, a great deal.  

and to their friends, who notice these things.  (and if you
think they don't you aren't spending enough time around 1st
and especially 2nd and 3rd graders!)

most 1st graders i know (and i do know a lot, one is my son)
have at least a rudimentary (although often wrong) understanding
of what "sex" is and "marriage" implies.  

peg
From: adolphso@mizar.usc.edu (adolphson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: A Few Questions
Date: 24 Dec 92 00:20:47 GMT
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: mizar.usc.edu

In article <1haritINN7vc@pith.uoregon.edu> 
dise@oregon.uoregon.edu writes:

> I don't know anyone who likes "faggot"

I like it.  It's how I describe myself.

Arne
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: cfthb@ux1.cts.eiu.edu (Howard Black)
Subject: Re: Raises a new question (Re: Is sexuality chosen or inborn?)
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 18:18:01 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Eastern Illinois University

In article <1993Jan1.153755.919@wam.umd.edu> rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:
>
>	Many gays complain that their orientation is discriminated against
>	by omission--that is, since there aren't homosexual characters in
>	books,movies, whatever--they are being discriminated against.

    Yes, many do.  This form of discrimination, of course, pales beside
societal marraige, adoption, etc. laws - those are the more important
discriminatory issues, imho.

>>>        How could one decide what to protect, preference or orientation, or
>>>        both with respect to anti-discrimination laws?
>>
>>    For me, the criterion is whether it's consensual and whether no one is
>>harmed.
>
>	Well,that's the rub, isn't it?  A lot of people feel that
>	homosexuals are mentally ill (and the rabble at the pride marches
>	doesn't help) and are *unable to give consent*.  

    Well, just when you think you've heard it all...so people object to gays
because their sexual practices are mutually non-consensual, since they are
too mentally ill to give consent?  Incredible.
 
>	... people who claim that homosexuals are not ill and
>	can give consent tend to be homosexuals.

    Oh, really?  Are you really this stupid, or do you like starting
flamewars?

-- 
   ******************************************************************
     Howard Black                             cfthb@ux1.cts.eiu.edu
     Department of Chemistry                  Eastern Illinois Univ.
From: bwood@nssdca.gsfc.nasa.gov (William Wood)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Mr Jackson
Date: 29 Dec 92 18:19:00 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: NASA - Goddard Space Flight Center
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41



I find it astounding that Mr. jackson wants to have anyone
boycott the reds or anything else HE DEEMS as recist.  This,
especially after the remarks about the Jews he made a few years ago,
which unfolded his own racism.  He thinks he can rise above it by
elbowing up to them and other non-black organizations that he has,
in the past, made very direct opinionated remarks (nice way of
saying he slurred "them folks") toward non-blacks that didn't
bow to HIS demands towards political correctness.  

  Why don't we just bid fond farewell to Colorado, and leave it
at that!
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: tom@flood.com (Tom Chatt)
Subject: Attention Skiers Boycotting Colorado
Organization: The Flood Group, Inc.  Torrance, Ca.
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 92 00:21:28 GMT

I discovered while holiday shopping that many skiing clothes
and accessories sold in California (and elsewhere, I'd imagine)
are made in redneck parts of Colorado, like Durango. For
anyone who may be wondering how to hit the CO rednecks without
disproportionally hurting the more lesbigay-positive places
such as Aspen: check the label on that gaiter, bula, or jacket
before you buy it!

-- 
Tom Chatt                        \   Don't take offense, take action.
Internet: tom@flood.com           \    Speak up. When we remain silent,
UUCP: ...!uunet!flood!tom        / \     we oppress ourselves.
From: crr4574@zeus.tamu.edu (LARUE, CHARLES L.)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: THE FINAL WORD ON TWISTED LOGIC!
Date: 22 Dec 92 21:07:00 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Texas A&M University, Academic Computing Services
NNTP-Posting-Host: zeus.tamu.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41


>|> >And even if he thinks homosexuality is "wrong", why does he think
>|> >that it's OK the discriminate against Gays?
>|> 
>|> You know Jon, it's people like you who really piss me off.  Please refer me
>|> back to the post where I said that it's OK to discriminate against Gays.  Can't
>|> find it?  I didn't think so.  Do your homework before you spout off.
> 
> 
>Here you go.
> 
>	In article <21DEC199215423972@venus.tamu.edu>, 
>			crr4574@venus.tamu.edu (LARUE, CHARLES L.) writes:
> 
>	If you want to convince people that there is nothing wrong with
>	what you do, you must present evidence in your favor.  If you 
>	could care less what other people think, then don't bitch when you 
>	are discriminated against.
> 
>Had you forgotten that you wrote that?

No, I wrote that.  I still don't see how that you can get out of that statement
that I say it's OK.  My point is that you are discriminated against.  Fact.  If
you want to stop this discrimination, you will have to educate people.  I
didn't say it was OK, I just said don't bitch about it if you don't care what
people think.  I didn't even insinuate that it was OK, but if you fail to see
that, then that's your problem.

Charley 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: elf@halcyon.com (Elf Sternberg)
Subject: Re: to Howard Black a.k.a Mr. Chemistry (Re: WHY?)
Originator: elf@halcyon.com
Organization: Pendor, UnLtd.
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 23:39:09 GMT

In article <5Nk3VB1w163w@peewee>
     peewee@infoserv.com (Philip Stromer) writes:

>        >All psychological studies agree that sexual orientation is in 
>        >most cases not a voluntary choice 

>Why should he, when there's so many good looking BABES out there?!
>Uh, after I saw Jamie Lee Curtis' huge HOOTERS in the movie "Perfect"?        

   Good, going, peewee!  As good a reason for lesbianism as I've ever
known.  You did know J.L.C. likes women, right?

>        >What are the _exact reasons_ homosexuality is inferior to 
>        >heterosexuality as a sexual orientation?

>o AIDS

   Growing fastest among straight women and minorities, peewee.

>o Popularity

   Got more of that than you do.

>o Good-looking chicks

   Got more of those than you do.

>o Reproduction

   Can still be done.

>o Coolness

   Oh, honey, it's cool to be queer.

>o Feel free to add anything else that comes to mind

   Howzabout more orgasms per lifetime than you'll ever be capable of?

>The Libertarians are the only party I'd trust with my precious vote.

   Funny, I voted for Marrou/Lord too.

         Elf !!!
--
elf@halcyon.com  (Elf Sternberg)

Then, I was inspired.               God, thy will is hard
Now, I'm sad and tired.             But you hold every card.
Listen, surely I've exceeded        I will drink your cup of poison.
Expectations.                       Nail me to your cross and break me.
Tried for three years,              Bleed me, beat me.
Seems like thirty.                  Kill me.
Could you ask as much               Take me now.
From any other man?                 Before I change my mind.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce)
Subject: Re: Education Regarding Alternative Family Units (Re: The Analogy Betwixt Gays & Blacks (Re: Children in Same-gender Families))
Organization: Elitist Usenet Administrators, Stuff and Nonsense Division
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 17:47:49 GMT

In article <1992Dec31.043704.4380@microsoft.com> philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:

>In article <C02stp.II1@unix.amherst.edu> twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce) writes:
>>In article <1hq1c7INNnba@hp-col.col.hp.com> smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes:
>>
>>>3) Should it also be taught that bisexuals [raise families]?
>>
>>I don't think it's necessary to make that addition.  In my experience,
>>few straight people make a serious distinction between bisexuals and
>>homosexuals.
>
>     And you don't see a problem in this?

Non sequitur alert!  I didn't say anything of the sort.  I said that I
didn't think it was necessary to explicitly address bisexuality in a
curriculum like Children of the Rainbow beyond the token "some people
love members of the same sex, some love members of the opposite sex,
and some love both."  Since most people don't make a serious
distinction between bisexuality and homosexuality, literature like
"Heather has Two Mommies" will cover most of those bases.

-- 
____ Tim Pierce                / 
\  / twpierce@unix.amherst.edu /               Rocks say goodbye.
 \/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) /