HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: tcarlin@athena.mit.edu (Thomas B Carlin)
Subject: Oh Please!
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 20:44:38 GMT

{lots of back and forth about God and religion/vs/homosexuality}

finally,

>>Not all of us are labouring under such a warped and distorted
>>view of the Bible as you seem to be. 

==
Then, David L. Hanson, knowing EXACTLY what God is and is not,
says:

<<Some forget that God is intolerant of sin; He is a God of
<<love AND JUSTICE. More of the Lord Jesus Christ's words 
<<follow: 
	{a lot of meaningless prattle, though ref'd well}

First of all, oh Christian one, take your God and go to hell.

Second, there is no god; while I do believe that there is a
	unifying force to the universe, this bullshit about
	being "made in his form" is just that.  You want to
	believe it - go right ahead!  Just don't shove it
	down my throat!  Unlike you, I realize that life --
	particularly yours! -- has no meaning and I accept it.

Third, I find it rather odd that ANYONE who professes to
	Christianity would feel they are in ANY position
	to judge anyone.  You talk a good game, it's a shame
	that you only mouth the words, not follow them.

Fourth, IF there is a God, and IF he/she/it is as you claim,
	YOU HAVE A HELL OF A LOT MORE TO ANSWER FOR THAN I DO.
	I'm just guilty of non-belief, whereas you are guilty
	of limiting GOD by defining what he/she/it is, and what
	he/she/it is NOT.

Finally, FUCK OFF.  Who invited you here anyway.  You have a
problem with lesbigay lifestyles, fine, eat shit and die.  Why
you feel the need to spew your bullshit on a Usenet line designed
for lesbigay people (and curious supporters) baffles me, unless
you are trying to tamp down your latent homosexual desires by
varnishing them over with religious crap.

I don't go around telling people what to believe or how to
behave, and I don't see where you get off thinking you have the
right.  You want to believe in Christianity - fine.  Anyone else
cares to - fine.  You want to push your values on me - we got a
problem.

Time to turn the other cheek, fuck off, and keep your opinions
to yourself.  Want to argue with someone, talk to street people!

Tom Carlin
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: fogarty@sir-c.jpl.nasa.gov (Tim Fogarty)
Subject: Re: The Zekester gets Serious, Maybe...NOT
Organization: JPL, Space Imaging Radar Software Group
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 23:19:23 GMT


In article <21DEC199216443512zeus.tamu.edu>, olw7845@zeus.tamu.edu 
(Zeke E. Pez) writes:
|>
|>I therefore ask the people of this alt.:
|>
|>****************************************************************************
|>What is your definition of an ADULT?
|>****************************************************************************
|>
|>
|>---------------------------------------------------------------
|>|The Zekester, PRO HETERO and proud of it!!                   |
|>|       **********         They call me homophobic,           |
|>|    ***          ***      They call me bigotted,             |
|>|  **<-------------****    They call me close-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!!        |
|>---------------------------------------------------------------
|>
|>

One thing is clear, Zeke E. Pez is not an adult.

--
Tim Fogarty
Sys Man and Sys Admin for the EGSE in the POCC at JSC for SRL-1, STS-59
FOGARTY@SIR-C.JPL.NASA.GOV
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: engp2024@nusunix2.nus.sg (ALI NAJAFI)
Subject: What are they all about?
Organization: National University of Singapore
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 01:48:19 GMT

Hi there,

     Sorry for this FAQ. I have recently come to know about these newsgroups
under alt.politics. I was wondering what are these all about. Can anybody
let me know or give me an email address by which I can get information.

     Thanks in advance.

ali.
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: THE FINAL WORD ON TWISTED LOGIC!
Date: 22 Dec 1992 21:04:07 GMT
Organization: sgi
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com

In article <22DEC199210575764@summa.tamu.edu>, crr4574@summa.tamu.edu (LARUE, CHARLES L.) writes:
|> In article <1h7fcjINNrfc@agate.berkeley.edu>, key@soda.berkeley.edu (peter li'ir key) writes...
|> > 
|> >1)	you say that homosexuality is wrong, and ask for proof
|> >	that it is not wrong.
|> >2)	i say that homosexuality is not wrong, and that there is no
|> >	proof needed.  but...
|> > 
|> >if you can 'justify' your statement that homosexuality is wrong,
|> >then i will 'justify' my statement.
|> 
|> This is exactly what I was talking about.  Everything I said was completely
|> taken out of context.  I said I believe that it is wrong.  I said that if you
|> don't want to be discriminated against, you need to educate people. 

Funny thing, Mr LaRue.   Here we all are, educating you, and all you do
is complain about it.

Makes you wonder, eh?

jon.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,soc.motss
From: lis@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu (Elisabeth Riba)
Subject: GOOD NEWS: St. Louis Law
Organization: Brandeis University
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 03:25:26 GMT

With all the legal setbacks and threats we've seen in the last year
(Colorado & Oregon) it's nice to see some places moving forward:

Boston Sunday Globe; Dec 27, 1992
"As others do battle, St. Louis give quiet nod to gay rights"
J.L. Hazelton, Associated Press
excerpts reprinted without permission

The law bars discrimination in housing, credit, employment, education
and public access on the grounds of physical or mental disability,
race, religion, family status and sexual orientation.

"It clearly is one of the strongest laws of the 130 we have in the
US," says Robert Bray, a spokesman for the National Gay and Lesbian
Task Force in Washington.

Laws in many other cities and states are less comprehensive, he said.
Some may protect homosexuals from housing discrimination, for example,
but not job discrimination.
...
The St. Louis board included a clause in its law to prevent it from
being repealed by referendum, said James Wilson, the city's lawyer.

Bray said that was unusual and praised the move.

"Once you have granted civil rights, you can't take them away by
popular vote," he said.  "Women would still be in the kitchen; blacks
would still be on the plantation."

Mary Ross, the alderwoman who introduced the measure, said she was not
trying to be a trailblazer.  She simply wanted to update the city's
civil rights protections.

"I think we covered, hopefully, everybody in this legislation" who
"could possibly be discriminated against in one manner or another, and
that is the intent," she said.  "It is not a gay-rights thing."
...
The law also created a civil rights commission, which has the power to
investigate, fine violators up to $500 and jail them for up to 90 days.
-- 
--------------->Elisabeth Anne Riba * lis@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu<---------------
   Do not meddle in the affairs	    |  Usenet is like Tetris for people
   of cats, for they are subtle     |  who still remember how to read.
   and will piss on your computer.  |	  So many newsgroups, so little time...
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce)
Subject: Re: TWISTED LOGIC!
Organization: Elitist Usenet Administrators, Turkey Division
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 19:35:57 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...
>
>>> What species has members that engage in exclusively homosexual behavior? 
>> 
>>Who cares?
>
>Someone did or they wouldn't have made the argument in first place.  I care,
>because if you are going to try and use this kind of logic to prove that
>homosexuality is natural, I say do it scientifically and look at facts. 

Well, then, why don't you go and tell us what you think "natural" is
supposed to mean in a scientific sense?  Let's get our terms
straightened out here.

>O.K.  Maybe justify was not the word I was looking for.  I just thought it was
>a stupid argument to use to explain homosexuality as natural. 

It is, but then again, saying that homosexuality is *not* observed in
the animal kingdom is a pretty stupid argument used for the
unnaturality of homosexuality.

>It is suprising that you would say that (though I am glad to hear someone say
>it).  Most gays insist that the figure is higher than 10%.  Since I personally
>know of no person who believes this, it damages the credibility of the gay 
>community.  That is why it matters.

I care.

-- 
____ Tim Pierce                / 
\  / twpierce@unix.amherst.edu /               Rocks say goodbye.
 \/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) / 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: owen@autodesk.com (D. Owen Rowley)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: A Few Questions
Date: 21 Dec 92 22:39:23 GMT
Distribution: usa

In article <21DEC199210521002@venus.tamu.edu>, crr4574@venus.tamu.edu (LARUE, CHARLES L.) writes:
> I am trying to gain some insight into the subject of homosexuality because I
> do not understand you.  I am not trying to be offensive, I just do not know the
> answers to my questions.
> 1.  Would you be heterosexual if you had a choice?

I tried to be heterosexual, I was married, I thought of myself as
heterosexual, I did not engage in homosexual behavior.
I was miserable.
At age 35 (ten years ago) I came out to myself and the world and have never
had a single regret for doing so.

> 2.  What terms do you find offensive?  I thought I knew until I heard of Queer
>     Nation.

I happen to like the term queer, many do not.
I happen to not like the term Gay, many like it a lot.
Ithink the context of usage is more important than the words themselves.

> 3.  I never understood what the problem was with Perot's comments in the
>     election.  He said that he did not want gays in his cabinet because he 
>     wanted to avoid controversy.  After this he was insulted and shouted down
>     several times.  I felt this did not look good for the homosexual community,

Frankly, we have tolerated the ignorance and back-handed sensitivity of such
small minded little shit heads as Ross perot far too long, and a good number
of us are just not particularly interested in being so tolerant any more.

Yeah that doesn't look very good sometimes, but on the other hand, telling
such litle fuckwads about the unacceptability of their mock concern really
makes some of us feel great after doing it :-)

>     that someone should have asked him to clarify his position instead of 
>     insulting him.  Can someone comment on this?

Hey, he was clear as a bell, I got it right away, and as much as I dearly
wanted to strike a blow to the heart of the two party system in the last
election the insulting nature of his position made it clear to me that 
Ross was not a person that I could put in the white house.
There were plenty of other examples of his unsuitability for high office as
well, but that issue sure clarified it for me.

> 4.  Finally, are you able to have heterosexual sex and enjoy it?

I've had fabulous heterosexual sex, and would probably do lots more of it
if it didn't tend to be so ..uh.. brief.
:-)

> 
> Once again, I am not trying to be offensive and I am not doing any type of
> study.  I ask these questions merely because I do not understand.

hope my answers help !

LUX ./. owen

--
D. Owen Rowley {uunet,fernwood,sun}!autodesk!owen

  " It will be a cold March 17th that I celebrate the imposition of
	Romes rule, on Pagan Ireland. Erin go ppphhhhhttttttt! "
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: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 15:51:39 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Eastern Illinois University

In article <1993Jan1.202329.13482@wam.umd.edu> rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:
>
>>>>    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.
>>>
>>>	I'm sure you've heard it before.
>>
>>    Nope.  Never.  And I exchange ideas with lots of 'phobes.  I'd be
>>interested to know if anyone else reading this newsgroup has ever heard
>>this amazing assertion before.
>
>	You've never heard that gays are mentally ill?  My argument is 
>	merely the logical extension of that argument:  the mentally
>	ill are not considered able to give informed consent.

    Of course I've heard the argument that gays are mentally ill.  What is
new to me is the extension thath they are *so* ill that they cannot give
informed consent to have sex with another person.
    Your extension is anything but logical.  Even if gays were mentally
ill, which the AMA, APA et al. have deemed not true, their mental
competence is another matter.  Let's say you're an agoraphobic, or anxious,
or suffer from any of a multitide of such problems.  Does that mean you are
non compus mentis?  Hardly.

>	If it helps, I've heard it a number of times from the 
>	fundies in my area (MD/Va/DC)

    The mentally-ill charge, or the "too ill for conformed consent"
blather?

>>    I think this is a terrible example.  It implies that gays are
>>equivalent mentally to a retarded person.  I'm sure you know that this
>>isn't the case.
>
>	No, it implies that, if we consider gays mentally ill 
>	(perhaps not you or I, but the vast majority) then we
>	cannot allow them to determine their own health.

    "Vast majority"?  Please.  Either support this or don't claim it.

    And, by "support", I don't mean some hate pamphlet from CFV.  I
honestly doubt that even a majority of homophobes feel that gays are
mentally ill.

>	Please.  I've heard it so many times it's boring.  The 
>	gays are mentally ill perverts argument is probably as old
>	as the "gays are servents of satan" argument.  If you haven't
>	heard it before, you've been hiding in some dark cave somewhere.

    Sure; but we're talking about competence.

-- 
   ******************************************************************
     Howard Black                             cfthb@ux1.cts.eiu.edu
     Department of Chemistry                  Eastern Illinois Univ. 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: albrigh@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (thomas g albright)
Subject: Re: TWISTED LOGIC!
Organization: The Cabal
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 15:52:02 GMT

In article <18DEC199217413519@zeus.tamu.edu> crr4574@zeus.tamu.edu (LARUE, 
CHARLES L.) writes:
...
>     A more appropriate question would be the following.  What species has
>members that engage in exclusively homosexual behavior?  Or are there any 
>examples of animals which mate for life engaging in exclusive homosexual 
>behavior?  If there are, give me some solid references.  I don't have a closed
>mind, I just believe that the animal example is ridiculous for the reasons I
>have stated.
...

About ten years ago, a species of lizard was discovered in Brazil, in which
two females of the species would mate for life, and would procreate without
the presence of any male.  Yes, that's right.  Believe it or not.  Certain
"ritual" mating behaviors on the part of one female stimulated reproduction
on the part of the other.  I don't have the references at hand as I write
this, but Charles, you're a scientist - you will be able to find them.

Xref: sparky alt.politics.homosexuality:8528 soc.motss:54085
From: olw7845@zeus.tamu.edu (Zeke E. Pez)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,soc.motss
Subject: Re: GOOD NEWS: St. Louis Law
Date: 30 Dec 1992 02:25 CST
Organization: Texas A&M University, Academic Computing Services
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: zeus.tamu.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

>The law bars discrimination in housing, credit, employment, education
>and public access on the grounds of physical or mental disability,
>race, religion, family status and sexual orientation.

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.

I certainly hope this legislation did not forget about our fellow brothers
and sisters that are from 60 yrs.(+/- 10 to 30 yrs) of age on up. 
Age discrimination is as vial and irresponsible as discrimination against
one's sexual orientation!

>"I think we covered, hopefully, everybody in this legislation" who
>"could possibly be discriminated against in one manner or another, and
>that is the intent," she said.  "It is not a gay-rights thing."
>....

She is correct about "It is not a gay-rights thing", it should be about
an "EQUAL-rights thing" for all of us. That includes homos, heteros, whites,
blacks, jews, pedophiles, necrophiles, senior citizens, bestia-philes, and the
list goes on!!

Am I making too much sense??
The Zekester
From: dise@decoy.uoregon.edu (David Casti)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: A Few Questions
Date: 24 Dec 1992 15:45:06 GMT
Organization: University of Oregon Network Services
Distribution: world
Reply-To: dise@oregon.uoregon.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: cisco-ts2-line30.uoregon.edu

In article <1havovINNa7j@mizar.usc.edu> adolphso@mizar.usc.edu (adolphson)  
writes:
> 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

I stand corrected...  However, I don't think I would say that I "know" you --  
more like I "know of" you.  None of the gay folk I associate with seem to like  
it much; perhaps your crowd is somewhat different.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.homosexuality:8844 alt.rush-limbaugh:12864 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:11331 alt.politics.clinton:19503 alt.politics.bush:15405
From: casivils@lescsse.jsc.nasa.gov (craig sivils)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Sexuality
Date: 3 Jan 93 21:17:12 GMT
Organization: Lockheed Engineering and Sciences

In <1993Jan1.143038.11366@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> cfthb@ux1.cts.eiu.edu (Howard Black) writes:
>>I have never condemned anyone in this discussion. I have
>>condemned certain lifestyles as being wrong not people. There is
>>a big difference.

>    This justification by you and Walter, along with many others, is
>getting really old.  Many other posters have pointed out the hypocrisy in
>claiming this belief.  IMHO, it is just a tool to let you feel more
>justified in your prejudicial feelings.

>    However...I, personally, don't care if you think this orientation is
>wrong ("orientation is wrong" ... it even sounds bizzare).  To me,
>"tolerance" is not the "four-letter word" Walter attributes to many gays.
>You can hate and/or condemn us from afar, once we have the same - not
>special - rights that you take for granted.
>-- 

There is hypocrisy on both sides. 

1st, Persecution of Gays does not have a biblical baisis.
     -----------
     Christ spent a lot of his time with prostitutes, tax collectors and others
     who lived "undesirable" lifestyles during their time period.
     Granted, the Bible is clear that Homosexuality is a sin.  However, so
     is lying, and everyone has lied.  Man places degrees on sin, not God.

2nd, Calling all Christians bigots is yet another "intolerance"
     I have seen several generalizations and expressions that the "Christian
     Attitude" is wrong.  Am I to assume then that you don't associate with
     Christians being as you can't condem someones actions/beliefs and 
     still respect ther precious rights.  Is tolorance only for the
     politicaly correct?  

If you look at the arguments given from both sides rather than what they
are defending, both sides would do well to listen to their words.

                             Craig
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Re: The Zekester gets Serious, Maybe...
Date: 22 Dec 1992 21:29:17 GMT
Organization: sgi
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com

In article <1992Dec22.203931.9252@wam.umd.edu>, aap@wam.umd.edu (Alberto Adolfo Pinkas) writes:
|> In article <1h7t7cINNklb@fido.asd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
|> >In article <1992Dec22.161223.23548@wam.umd.edu>, aap@wam.umd.edu (Alberto Adolfo Pinkas) writes:
|> >|> In article <1992Dec22.103116.11450@nwnexus.WA.COM> elf@halcyon.com (Elf Sternberg) writes:
|> >|> 
|> >|> >   Personally, someone who collect Simeon Smith art or Bodil doesn't
|> >|> >bother me in the least.  I might be a little leery of letting him/her
|> >|> >near my kids and/or dog, but then I'd be a little leery of letting even
|> >|> >friendly Mormons near my kids and/or dog, too...
|> >|> 
|> >|> I would guess that if some people "might be a little leery of letting
|> >|> friendly Gays near their kids", and then they act on that feeling by
|> >|> not allowing Gays to be in the Boy Scouts or maybe in some other places,
|> >|> like in schools as teachers, you and some of your friends would start
|> >|> crying: DISCRIMINATION, DISCRIMINATION!!!!!!  
|> >
|> >Well, if I heard Mr Sternberg proposing to ban Mormons from the Boy
|> >Scouts, I would certainly think it discriminatory.   But I don't hear
|> >him saying that, do you?
|> 
|> Did I say that he said that?

No, I am pointing out that he *didn't* say that.

|> 
|> >
|> >And that just leaves us with Gays, kids, and Boy Scouts.   So what are
|> >you saying, Mr Pinkas? 
|> >
|> 
|> Exactly what I said before.

Which is what, exactly?

jon.
From: hocake@bsu-cs.bsu.edu (David Speakman)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: US Sanctioned Non-Heterosexual participation in the Armed Forces
Date: 24 Dec 92 07:47:36 GMT
Organization: Dept. of CS Ball State University Muncie IN

Clinton will lift the "homosexuality ban" from the armed forces.

We all know what happens to presidents who back down from campaign promises.
(George "no more years" Bush)

And if high-ranking officials resign and others do not re-inlist, fine.

the Penatgon has been trying to figure ways to downsize the military anyway.

Others (qualified to function through any bigotry) will fill any vancancies.

ON SHOWERS:
This is a stupid thread. ANY unwanted sexual behavior or advance is 
harassment, regardless of gender of the offender or the offended.

Sexual Harassment should not be tolerated.


-- 
---\ "Pride        //--// David Speakman,     \\--\\ .---Proud Member of---.
----\  on          \\--\\hocake@bsu-cs.bsu.edu//--// |Ball State University|
----/\  Campus"    //--//00daspeakman@bsu.edu \\--\\ |Lesbian & Gay Student|
---/  \            \\--\\ "Challenge Bigotry" //--// `-----Association-----'