HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: hocake@bsu-cs.bsu.edu (David Speakman)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Lobbying Involvement
Keywords: Queer Nation, ACT UP, etc..
Date: 24 Dec 92 01:57:49 GMT
Organization: Dept. of CS Ball State University Muncie IN

Well, Carrie,

Ask around your location.  Read Lesbigay papers.  If there is no Queer Nation
or ACT-UP near you, form your own.

The groups are really loose in structure with little to no hierarchy.
(an unstable)

David

-- 
---\ "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-----'
From: olw7845@zeus.tamu.edu (Zeke E. Pez)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Raises a new question (Re: Is sexuality chosen or inborn?)
Date: 31 Dec 1992 21:14 CST
Organization: Texas A&M University, Academic Computing Services
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: zeus.tamu.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

>>Preference vs. Orientation vs. Behavior
>>Can people choose these things?? 
>   Yes. 
>>Sexual orientation (the biological, uncontrollable attraction to
>>another) is inherent.
>   And I will argue that this isn't necessarily so for all people!
>You're pigeonholing a term.

        Sounds to me like he is attempting to define what
        _sexual orientation_ is about so yes, he is trying to place
        an apparent meaning to the term.

        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??

        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?

        How could one even differentiate preference or orientation??
        Is there a test that says, "Hey your a HOMO"?
        Is there a test that says, "Hey you aren't a homo, but you prefer
        them"?


>                             By your argument, my sexual orientation is
>heterosexual and my sexual preference is homosexual and my eventual
>behavior is bisexual... and I want to know how, in this ridiculously
>heterosexual world THAT happened?
>   Either that or I have NO sexual orientation at all, and I dictated
>my sexual preference by choice, not conditioning.

	Maybe, it is a combination of both.  Maybe, if you search way down
        into your inner soul, you might see that closet "PEDOPHILE" that 
        waiting to come out.  Then hey, you could start doin' your own kids
        and be protected from discrimination by all the anti-discrimination 
	laws. In fact, if bills in Colorado get passed were homosexuals are
        given special rights, then maybe one day you and I could eventually
        get a constitutional ammendment stating that all _sexual orientations_
        are created equal.  I then would have the right to *do* beehives, you
        could have the right to do your children, maybe even your children's
        children! Gosh, I'll trade you this beehive for that young'n of yours
        for the night, what the hell we could do each other and the beehives
        and the children, and my little dog TOTO,too!!

        This is truly a great country!

ZEKE
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 19:52:23 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Eastern Illinois University

In article <1993Jan1.183617.8618@wam.umd.edu> rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:
>>    Yes, many do.  This form of discrimination, of course, pales beside
>>societal marraige, adoption, etc. laws - those are the more important
>>discriminatory issues, imho.
>
>	This is not a form of discrimination.

    What do you call it?

>>    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.

>	Clever the way you cut out the first half of that point.
>	
>	"There are some people who believe that children
>	can, indeed, give consent.  These people happen
>	to be the same people interested inraping children.
>	Likewise, "

    I cut it out because I agree, and saw no reason to waste bandwidth.

[bad example deleted]
>	Actually, that's not a good example.  A better example is the
>	case that is being tried now involving 8 adolescents and 
>	an 18 year old (age uncertain) retarded girl with the approximate
>	intellect of an eight year old.  Now, this girl is of age,
>	but they are aiming that she was unable to give _consent_
>	because she does not have the mental capacity to do so.  

    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.

>	You cannot answer a point with a flame, Howard.  It doesn't
>	work.  If you cannot address the point, concede that you are
>	unable, or don't respond.  Usenet gets enough flames without
>	the weak-minded trying to hid behind them because they are
>	unable to reply intelligently.

    Some points are so irrational that they deserve no response.  You seem
to be more adept than most at keep us in good supply.

>	In case it makes you feel better, I do not hold these views
>	myself.  But the vast majority of the worlds population does,
>	in fact, hold these views or views quite similar.  Just because

    I don't agree at all.  Your dumb "mental illness" model is new to me,
and I've been around the block many times.

>	you don't agree with them doesn't make them wrong--your
>	opinions do not outweigh anyone else's, and in this case,
>	it's *all* opinion.

    The mental health of the average gay person is not a matter of opinion.

-- 
   ******************************************************************
     Howard Black                             cfthb@ux1.cts.eiu.edu
     Department of Chemistry                  Eastern Illinois Univ. 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: u7913017@cc.nctu.edu.tw (CHANG SHU HAW )
Subject: quite simple
Organization: National Chiao Tung University
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 10:12:24 GMT


Hi folks: 

  I want to know what kind of charecters  should a gay have if  he want
people around them can understand him and take the situation easy.
And if he have any lover then how should they get alone and treat each
other? In my presonal opinion I thought about the following things:
       (1) Never hurt others.
       (2) Be honest to your partner.  
       (3) Your horner is the great gift.(Don't lose it)    
  Maybe it is no common rule to obey   ,a little sad.     
  I ask for more answers .................... ;-)  
                                                 Happy New Year !!
                                                 sincerely  yours,              
                                                              Jevons  Chang
From: greg_bradt@msmgate.mrg.uswest.com (Greg Bradt aka The Lensman)
Subject: Re: Education Regarding Alternative Family Units (Re: The Analogy Betwixt Gays & Blacks (Re: Children in Samegender Families))
XXXDate: Mon, 4 Jan 93 19:32:04 GMT
XUserAgent: Nuntius v1.1.1d16
XXXMessageID: <A76DDEC4A5060614@greg_bradt.mrg.uswest.com>
Organization: US West Marketing Resources
NntpPostingHost: greg_bradt.mrg.uswest.com
Date: 04 Jan 93 19:33:05 GMT

In article <1i024gINNfji@hpcol.col.hp.com> Walter Smith, smithw@col.hp.com
writes:
>As it was explained to me (by those in *favor* of the books), their purpose 
>is to show homosexual families in a positive light, so that kids who come 
>from them will not be picked on for it, or feel 'odd' because of it. 
>If there is no 'value' being attached to the whole subject, it is rather 
>pointless at achieving its goal.

I think I'm beginning see where the semantic confusion comes from.

One could say that, by saying that gays should not be picked on, or be made
to feel inferior, that this is a "positive" statement about homosexuality. 
We appear to agree that this is sort of passively "positive" statement is
acceptable.  It is not, of course, the same as saying "homosexuality is
good".  However, when some people hear that homosexuals are being shown in a
"positive light", they might assume that such a statement was being made.

Add this misunderstanding to the group who wish to see homosexuality
represented only as an "evil" and you have a very understandable backlash to
the curriculum.  Hopefully, when this shakes itself out, rationality will
prevail.

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.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: lyle_sweeney@mentorg.com
Subject: OREGON Gay & Lesbian Community Center
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 21:08:18 GMT
Reply-To: lyle_sweeney@mentorg.com
Organization: Mentor Graphics Corporation

 Gay and Lesbian Community Center
The time has arrived for the gay and lesbian community of Oregon to develop a
home.  Measure Nine made it abundantly evident that we need a permanent and
visible base from which to work. Most major cities in the U.S. and across
Europe have collective facilities that provide space, equipment and services
for our diverse community and our friends.  

Building trust between organizations and achieving consensus on the needs and
functions of a community center are fundamental to its success. A non-partisan
organization is being formed which will facilitate this process. Meetings and a
state-wide survey soliciting ideas will be conducted in January and February.
For more information, please write to the Oregon Gay & Lesbian Cultural
Resource Center (OGL-CRC),  P. O. Box 6012, Portland, OR  97228.
From: owen@autodesk.com (D. Owen Rowley)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: The Analogy Betwixt Gays & Blacks (Re: Children in Same-gender Fam
Date: 21 Dec 92 21:36:45 GMT
Distribution: usa

In article <1gvbe4INN6fn@hp-col.col.hp.com>, smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes:
> > It is for reasons like this that I have serious reservations about the 
> > iniative process. I would like to see more input from the citizenry,
> > and less beurocratic fluff from paid govt people, but honestly
> > some sort of standard needs to be applied to the wording and 
> > *sense* of ballot initiatives
> 
> I can see your point, but it might be hard to do.  What would have been 
> good would have been for someone to see how bad the wording was on the
> amendment, and submit a parallel amendment that cleared it up.  There 
> were several similar gambling amendments on the ballot this year; if 
> someone had submitted an amendment saying "no quotas" based on sexual 
> orientation, and *no* discrimination based on sexual orientation, I 
> suspect it would have won overwhelmingly, and that it would have 
> caused #2 to fail. 

this is exactly how I feel about it.
I believe that the climate being fostered by the radical religious right
is the heir of the Inquisition.

You might want to look at how the inquisitors spread their campaign
by making their terminology and their interpretations of things 
the dfault in the general population before going in 
*for the kill* BTW
You might also want to take a look at how the Nazis did the same thing 
before *going in for the kill* BTW.

Because Walter, if this is another of those eras, people who argue
semanticly, might wind up with more blood on their hands than they can find
comfortable.

You argue passionately because you believe you have the future of
your genetic material at stake ( ie your children ),
I argue passionately
because i believe I have the futuer of my genetic material at stake
(ie my own self).
Are you beginning to understand where I'm coming from Walter.

If you don't want to see another inquisition in our time, then i suggest
you pay more attention to the finger pointers and their agenda, and start
paying attention to how much of their agenda has filtered into your own
thought process.
This is not inuendo or accusation walter, this is a wake up call.

( BTW, I get in plenty of trouble amongst my queer peers for telling them
the same thing about the left wing strangle hold on queer-liberation,
I am an equal opportunity pain in the ass :-)


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! "
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: A Few Questions
Date: 21 Dec 92 21:15:49 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: sgi
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com

In article <1992Dec21.183914.18680@netcom.com>, robj@netcom.com (Rob Jellinghaus) writes:
|>
|>	[He's talking about Perot]
|>
|> He did clarify his position.  His position, clarified, was that he did
|> not want to nominate any homosexuals to his cabinet, as he didn't want
|> to put any homosexuals through the torture of the nominating process.
|> This is patronizing to homosexuals; if the candidate is qualified, and
|> accepts the nomination, the candidate has to deal with the process,
|> and would be happy to do so.  And this is pandering to bigots; if the
|> candidate really is qualified, then the candidate should have Perot's
|> full support against the prejudice which Perot so feared.
|> 
|> Consider this analogy: someone in 1960 saying he wouldn't nominate
|> blacks to the cabinet in order to avoid controversy.  A leader is
|> supposed to lead, and I want my leaders to lead in the direction of
|> including all people regardless of race, religion, or sexual
|> orientation.  That's why I voted for Clinton, and that has a lot to do
|> with why so many millions of others did, too.
~

I think you raise a very interesting point.   Clinton's transition
team has several openly Gay members, and no-one seems to pay much 
attention.

I think Perot was not merely predicting trouble if a Gay was nominated
to the Cabinet, but really inviting it.   Perot was setting up the
expectation that if a Gay were nominated, it would inevitably ignite a 
long drawm out political batle.

Clinto has set completely different expectations.   If clinton nominates 
a Gay cabinet member, I doubt if any Senator could seriously look him 
in the face and suggest that there was anything wrong with that.

jon.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: dillhoff@aslws01.asl.dl.nec.com (Doug Dillhoff)
Subject: Re: Sexuality
Organization: NEC America, Inc Irving TX
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 22:17:05 GMT

In article <1992Dec31.133204.680@uswmrg.mrg.uswest.com.mrg.uswest.com> greg_bradt@msmgate.mrg.uswest.com (Greg Bradt) writes:
>In article <1992Dec30.191743.7958@asl.dl.nec.com> Doug Dillhoff,
>dillhoff@aslws01.asl.dl.nec.com writes:
>>should not be considered normal and should not be taught as an
>>alternate lifestyle. 
>
>
>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()
>

I have never condemned anyone in this discussion. I have
condemned certain lifestyles as being wrong not people. There is
a big difference.
-- 
Doug Dillhoff            Any opinions expressed are strictly my own.
From: owen@autodesk.com (D. Owen Rowley)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: walter smith
Date: 23 Dec 92 01:32:48 GMT

It looks like Walter tired of us.
Perhaps I asked to many hard questions.

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! "
From: key@soda.berkeley.edu (peter li'ir key)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: THE FINAL WORD ON TWISTED LOGIC!
Date: 22 Dec 1992 16:22:43 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley, CS Undergraduate Association
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: soda.berkeley.edu


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.

if you wish you can email me.

peter li'ir key
key@soda.berkeley.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: elf@halcyon.com (Elf Sternberg)
Subject: Re: A Few Questions
Originator: elf@halcyon.com
Organization: Pendor, UnLtd.
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 23:39:42 GMT

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?

   Actually, I was heterosexual at one time, and I had a choice to
become bisexual.  And I chose it.  I would not discriminate against
someone's potential to be a lover because they happened to have blond
hair versus brunette hair, because that's something they were born
with.  By the same token, I will not discriminate against someone
because they happen to be male versus female, because that's something
they were born with.  It's that simple.

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

   Well, you can call me anything you want.  Queer Nation is attempting
something called "Term reclaimation."  All of the terms used to insult
us in the past (Queer, Faggot, Cocksucker, Dyke) are becoming part of
our positive vocabulary.  Let's face it; these words are used to
describe _me_, and I'm proud of what I am.  So I'm proud of being a
Queer, Faggot, Cocksucker.

   One thing I found amusing about being called a "cocksucker" is that,
if that term is supposed to be demeaning, what does it say about how
the speaker feels about women who perform fellatio.  The term is an
insult, a dimunitive.  A lot of the hatred directed at gays is pro
forma misogyny in another costume, a fear that, as a man, the speaker
could be seen in a 'feminine role,' which the speaker regards as an
inferior role.

   Another term I'm especially fond of is 'Homo.'  Having had a
classical education including three years of Latin, I find it amusing
that a person would assure himself that I am something he will never be
by screaming the word "same" at me.

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

   Sure.  Sex is sex.  It's an expression of affection with someone I
want to show that affection towards.  When I'm close enough to a friend
that I want to express that kind of affection, it really doesn't matter
what kind of hardware they bring to bed with them.

         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: robj@netcom.com (Rob Jellinghaus)
Subject: Re: WHY?
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 03:37:15 GMT

In article <0Fm8VB1w163w@peewee> peewee@infoserv.com (Philip Stromer) writes:
>You were close, but several things are more gross, namely:        
>1. Sticking your tongue up someone's ANUS
...
>So is sex, but it ain't worth the risk of AIDS.  I advocate
>that everyone STOP having sex, right now.
...
>Most men will tell you "eeewwww!!!" at the thought of anal
>sex.  But thanx for playing.  Better luck next time.
...
>Oral sex?   EEEWWWW!!!
...
>I'm too stupid to learn, so why should I bother to read?  Gimme a break!

It's true, y'all.  This guy REALLY IS the reincarnation of the final
stage of djk, when he was doing nothing but blathering about his
sexual hangups and yelling names at queers.  At least he's so dumb
that he doesn't do anyone any damage but himself.

-- 
Rob Jellinghaus    |  "Next time you see a lie being spread or a bad 
robj@netcom.com    |   decision being made out of sheer ignorance,
robj@xanadu.com    |   pause, and think of hypertext."
uunet!netcom!robj  |       -- K. Eric Drexler, _Engines of Creation_