HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: marek@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Marek Lugowski)
Subject: Re: On Forbidden Lusts / Marek
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston Illinois.
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 18:37:52 GMT

In article <1993Jan25.065402.4493@umr.edu>
wdechent@usenet.umr.edu (William L. Dechent) writes:
>This is in response to the poem which said AIDS was Nature's way of checking
>perversion...
>
>Not everyone has the same standards but for the sake of the argument
>...


Hello net.friends,

	On behalf of rec.arts.poems I would like to ask that rec.arts.poems
be excluded from the followup list for this thread unless your replies are
made in the form of poems.  Simply, the list of newsgroups in the header
encompasses more than half of the entire readership of Usenet and we will
be swamped with nonpoems unless you take pity on us.

For those of you who might not know, a poem is tabbed two tab stops to the
right and features a title, underlined with a line of hyphens extending to
the 67th column, then separated from the main body by a blank line.
Lower case is easier on the eyes.  Feel free to use the word fuck in a
friendly, earnest way.

Thank you and many blessings to you and your yogurt.

				-- Marek

Newsgroups: alt.politics.correct
From: jimbo@leland.Stanford.EDU (Godfather of Soul)
Subject: Re: The pro-choice thought police in action
Organization: NewsRUs
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 93 01:41:12 GMT

In article <1993Jan23.182821.8437@ncsu.edu> dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>  "Lawyers have no First Amendment right to use whatever
>   language they want in a courtroom, the U.S. Court of
>   Appeals for the Ninth Circuit made clear July 1.  Thus,
>   a lawyer who was representing abortion protesters at
>   a criminal trial, and who contravened a court order
>   not to use words such as ``murderers'' and ``killers''
>   that went to defenses the trial court had excluded,
>   was properly held in contempt on 20 occasions.  
>   Zal v. Steppe, CA 9, No. 91-55579, 7/1/92."
>
>   The United States Law Week, 8/4/92, pg. 2062
>


-- 
James W. Brown	-  I dream of the day when conservatives learn   	-
		-  the difference between a sin and a crime and  	-
		-  liberals learn the difference between a       	-
		-  virtue and a requirement.      --William A. Niskanen	-
Xref: sparky alt.politics.correct:6315 alt.rush-limbaugh:14771 alt.politics.sex:647
From: jjas@acs.nntp-read.bu.edu (Jason Stephenson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.correct,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.sex
Subject: Re: Give me a break--P.C. misuse!
Date: 22 Jan 93 01:31:16 GMT
	<1993Jan21.184258.5385@nevada.edu> <C17z57.3oC@ecf.toronto.edu>
Followup-To: alt.politics.correct
Organization: Boston University Information Technology Boston, MA USA
In-reply-to: pelton@ecf.toronto.edu's message of 21 Jan 93 19:51:05 GMT

From: pelton@ecf.toronto.edu (PELTON MATTHEW ALAN):
  I'm probably wrong.  I'd be interested to hear an example where you could
use "on" instead of  "il".

As a soon-to-be-annointed scholar of the French language and all
things gallic in nature as well as someone who has lived in France for
a period of time (one year, to be precise) I am qualified to address
this question.
Fact of the matter is, in French as it is currently spoken by the
majority of French does not allow for the replacement of "il" or
"elle" with the pronoun "on", which itself is used more to mean "nous"
in a sense of we as a whole or certain group with something in common
and most ordinarily when referring to what one says or does in a given
situation.  The only time it means "one" is in literature and even
then could be rendered as "we" without harming the meaning.  "On"
cannot be used to replace "il" or "elle" ever.

Now that we've cleared that up, I hope, may we return to the topic at
hand: the question of politics and gender?
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton
From: cornell@inoc.dl.nec.com (C.J.K.)
Subject: Re: Gay marriage
Followup-To: alt.politics.clinton
Keywords: same sex couples
Reply-To: nobody
Organization: Not very organized
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 09:28:59 GMT

stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce) writes:

>These are justifications* for you wanting to marry, not justifications
		  	       ^^^
Who?
>for the marriage laws in general, nor for expanding legal "marriage" to
>include same-sex couples.  I've been through this many times before
>(although someone just recently expanded the cross-posting of this
>thread alt.politics.homosexuality, a group I didn't know existed and
>this site doesn't get).  The answer is still the same:

>*I said that homosexuals have the same rights we all have.  Others said,
					       ^^
Who?
>*what about marriage?  Well, as has been pointed out, homosexuals can marry,
...

Oh, it was you who put this junk out previously.  The more times you
post it the more it becomes correct.

>If you still don't agree and/or want to argue, before you do, please
>email me and I will send you the whole argument, and we can then spare
>those who have seen it all before.  Thank you.  If you still want to
>argue, we can do it in these groups or in email, whatever you prefer.

You have demonstrated your ability to put this out that's been 
seen here before.  Don't bother going out of your way.
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
What I write does not necessarily represent the view of my employer.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: shore@dinah.tc.cornell.edu (Melinda Shore)
Subject: Re: APA and homosexuality,AIDS
Organization: Cornell Theory Center
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 17:48:45 GMT

In article <74345@cup.portal.com> Arthur_T_Hu@cup.portal.com writes:
>Not true among white women because Lesbians have a higher rate of
>IV drug abuse and partners at risk. 

Nope.  The incidence of HIV infection is lower among lesbians
than among just about any other identifiable group, including
straight women.  Furthermore, in the handful of cases of
woman-to-woman transmission that have been identified (fewer
than 10), further investigation has turned up either sex with
men or IV drug use.  When I looked into it last April, there
was not one clear-cut case of woman-to-woman HIV transmission.

Hey Arthur - maybe lesbians are all Asian!
--
       Melinda Shore - Cornell Theory Center - shore@tc.cornell.edu
Xref: sparky alt.politics.homosexuality:10440 alt.rush-limbaugh:15405 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:14108
From: krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Read this if you are straight!
Date: 25 Jan 93 18:46:18 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson AZ

In article <1993Jan24.234010.28186@Princeton.EDU> elliott@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Jr. Frank W. Elliott) writes:
>In article <1jv6feINNbt5@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu> cwagner@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Christian Wagner) writes:
>>In article <1993Jan21.163402.9699@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
>>>I just had an idea!  Let's all lobby to get gays recognized as a 
>>>bonified minority with special rights.  Then, after the laws  get passed, 
>>>write open letters to our bosses stating that we are coming out of 
>>>the closet.  Afterward, if we get fired or layed-off for any reason, 
>>>we can just claim homophobia and discrimination.  We will keep our 
>>>jobs for life!
>>
>>Actually, Ted, this isn't a bad idea. That way, assholes like you (and only 
>>assholes like you would try to pull a stunt like this) would understand how 
>>it feels to be a homosexual in today's workplace, constantly having to act 
>>like something you aren't in order to hold your job. 
>>
>>After all, once you've "come out of the closet", you could never make -any-
>>kind of reference to being straight ever again, could you? You'd have to lie,
>>and pretend to be gay, and pretend to be indignant when someone says a -really
>>funny- joke about AIDS, and you'd have to pretend to be 'between boyfriends',
>>and generally have to repress your own personal beliefs because you don't want
>>to lose your job. 
>>
>>Although, Ted, the boss could probably fire someone like -you- anyway. After
>>all, it's perfectly legal to fire someone if they act like an asshole at work.
>>               Christian Wagner - cwagner@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu 
>
>Do you really think that he has the courage (read "balls") to put up with a
>life like this?
>
>--Frank

Hey!  I'm a conservative republican, charismatic christian, white male 
of european heritage, working in a leftist university.  I already know 
what it feels like to be discriminated against every day.

Ted

-- 
So the Maples formed a union, and demanded equal rights, "The Oaks are just 
too greedy.  We will make them give us light!"  Now there's no more Oak 
oppression, for they passed a noble law.  And the trees are all kept equal, 
by hatchet, axe and saw.     -  Rush, The Trees
Xref: sparky alt.politics.homosexuality:10373 alt.rush-limbaugh:15289 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:13983 alt.politics.clinton:21367 alt.politics.bush:16398
From: dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Read this if you are straight!
Date: 27 Jan 93 02:15:00 GMT
Organization: NCSU

In article <C1HC4I.A1H.1@cs.cmu.edu> 
garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>Gregory.D.Wadlinger@dartmouth.edu (Gregory D. Wadlinger) writes:

>> My point is, gays don't deserve any more protection than anyone else,
>> and that is what Krueger is trying to illustrate in a humorous way.

> As someone else said, neither gay men, lesbians, nor bisexuals
> are asking for more protection.  They're asking for equal
> protection.  Some people wish to discriminate against a group
> of people, and they lie about the issues to cover up their
> hatefulness.  

Do you feel that fat and ugly people should be protected against 
discrimination?  No??!!  Why, it's obvious that you must hate fat
and ugly people!  Yes, that's it!  Fat and ugly people are just
asking for equal protection, and for you to deny them protection 
indicates that you must be covering up your hatefulness towards 
them. 

I guess there's no need for some people to really think about the 
purpose of the law and the impact that legislation would have on 
businesses when they can just as easily assign evil motivations to 
their opponents. 

>Susan


Doug Holtsinger
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: ECL4JN2@MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU (Jack B. Nimble)
Subject: Re: God is intolerant of sin!
Date: 25 Jan 93 11:47:39 PST

In article <1jpbfqINNbig@hp-col.col.hp.com>, on 22 Jan 1993 17:39:06 GMT,
smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes:

>
>twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce) writes:
>> >"Most" Christians can look at a law that prohibits multi-fabric
>> >clothing and see that it is ceremonial, and laws about sexual relations
>> >and see that they are about morality.
>>
>> "Everybody knows it" is not an acceptable answer.
>
>Then I guess it is fortunate that the NT clears up the issue, by
>saying that Christians are not under the letter of the Mosaic
>Law, and that it re-states which things Christians should follow.

This is utter bullshit! The NT clears up absolutely nothing of the
kind. According to the NT, Jesus proclaimed his loyalty to the Jewish
law, and claimed he had no intention to change even the slightest bit
of it.

Your attempt to make distinctions between "ceremonial" and "moral"
teachings is self-serving and specious.

    =Jack=
---
Jack B. Newsbaum             I would have been born again; however,     00010000
Library Information Systems  Mom didn't think much of that idea.        00020000
University Research Library  Make money, not war!                       00030000
ecl4jn2@mvs.oac.ucla.edu     Closets are for clothes.                   00040000
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,talk.religion.misc
From: pmm7@ellis.uchicago.edu (peggy boucher murphy (you had to ask?))
Subject: Re: Children of the Rainbow books
Reply-To: pmm7@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 23:31:50 GMT

In article <1993Jan18.144623.5085@memstvx1.memst.edu> kebarnes@memstvx1.memst.edu writes:
>In article <1j7tthINNjub@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov>,
>fogarty@sir-c.jpl.nasa.gov (Tim Fogarty) said:
>
>> In response to my article <1993Jan15.191410.5060@memstvx1.memst.edu>,
>> in which (kebarnes@memstvx1.memst.edu) wrote:
>> |> Presumably,
>> |>a gay child would be preferred by gay parents who wish to preserve
>> |>their own values.
>> 
>> Completely false.  A gay parent would only want their child to be free
>> to express their own sexual orientation.  If it was wrong to try to force 
>> me to be heterosexual, it would be equally wrong for me to try to force
>> my heterosexual child to be homosexual.
>
>I quite agree. I was addressing, however, that presumably most parents
>would prefer that their children grow up to reflect the set of values
>they themselves hold, not whether this is a good thing for the parents
>to actively pursue. Do you not agree that your parents would have
>preferred a "straight" child given the choice, and that it would not
>be unexpected for gay parents to prefer children who more closely
>resemble themselves? That is, that gays are just as humanly biased
>as the rest of us?

please tell me what "gay values" are?  my values are 
colored by my sexuality (i have a remarkable affinity 
for acceptance, tolerance, non-judgemental attitudes, 
open minds, etc), but are not "gay".  my three children
are admirably reflecting my values.  i (and most of the 
queer parents i know -- how many do you know, btw?) do
not see sexuality as a *value*.  

my parents *expected* straight children, because anything
else was evil, unthinkable, and implied that they might 
have done something wrong.  i think nothing similar about
having straight children... although i would probably
feel that way if one of them was a homophobe, a sexist, 
a racist.  *that* would be against my values.  (but i 
would still love them and not reject them.) 

please explain what these "biases" that are so obvious to
you in gay parents are?  we'd *love* to know...

>"When I was a boy I was told that anybody could become President;
>I'm beginning to believe it."--Clarence Darrow

<smile> clarence darrow is one of my personal heroes.  
nice quote.  

peg

Xref: sparky alt.politics.homosexuality:10429 alt.rush-limbaugh:15391 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:14092 alt.politics.clinton:21486 alt.politics.bush:16421
From: krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Read this if you are Ted Krueger!
Date: 25 Jan 93 22:32:53 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson AZ

In article <1993Jan25.205821.20573@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> tip@lead.aichem.arizona.edu (Tom Perigrin) writes:

>It would be unfair to condemn Ted Krueger as a dolt or a simpleton just
>because he can't spell.   The only fair way to come to that conclusion
>would be to read the content of his messages.

BEEEEEP!  That's it folks!  Our game is over for today.  I'll have to 
admit that it was a close call deciding if this was a flame or not, but 
what the heck?  We have a winner! Tom Peregrin is gets credit for the 
third personal hack on me for January 25, 1993.  Remember to play 
tommorrow (sp!) folks.

Thanks to those of you who played our game but could not make it in 
before the deadline.

Ted
 
-- 
So the Maples formed a union, and demanded equal rights, "The Oaks are just 
too greedy.  We will make them give us light!"  Now there's no more Oak 
oppression, for they passed a noble law.  And the trees are all kept equal, 
by hatchet, axe and saw.     -  Rush, The Trees
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce)
Subject: Re: Special Rights for Heterosexuals (Re: Text of the CO Gay Discrimination Provisions Ammendment)
Organization: Elitist Usenet Administrators, Stuff and Nonsense Division
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 06:39:58 GMT

In article <john.727818510@misty> john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore) writes:

>fogarty@sir-c.jpl.nasa.gov (Tim Fogarty) writes:
>
>>In article <john.727477570@misty>, john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore) writes:
>
>]Someone else wrote, and many people jumped on,
>]|>]-Furthermore, in the case of gays, you already have a higher average earning
>]|>]-than het's in the US. You are not in a good position to claim economic
>]|>]-victimhood.
>
>]If you are doing a survey of annual income of gays, the only people in your
>]survey are those who are openly gay.
>
>So what? Those who are not openly gay are not going to be discriminated
>against for their sexual preference!

Ever heard of people being outed, John?

>As far as I am concerned, when the law mentions
>sexual preference at all, it is wrong (with a couple of exceptions:
>custody of children, and military service).

Right.  When the law mentions sexual preference, it's wrong unless
it's a context which limits the rights of queers.

>Furthermore, the government can't
>affect how you are "judged." It can only coerce other people's behavior.

I have this problem with oxymorons, see.

-- 
____ Tim Pierce                / 
\  / twpierce@unix.amherst.edu /               Rocks say goodbye.
 \/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) / 
Xref: sparky alt.politics.homosexuality:10021 alt.rush-limbaugh:14804 alt.politics.clinton:20918
From: henry@ADS.COM (Henry Mensch)
Subject: Re: About Calling in Your Opinion on Ban
Organization: Advanced Decision Systems; a div of Booz, Allen & Hamilton
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 07:41:45 GMT

LASAGA@corral.uwyo.edu (LASAGA) wrote: 
->Finally, did anyone else get a cold response at the Pentagon's
->number after saying you were against the ban (for lifting it)?

are you really surprised?

--
# henry mensch / booz, allen & hamilton, inc.  / <henry@ads.com>
# "fight the real enemy."  -- sinead o'connor, and many others.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: StarOwl@uiuc.edu (Michael D. Adams)
Subject: Re: Special Rights for Heterosexuals (Re: Text of the CO Gay Discrimination Provisions Ammendment)
Reply-To: StarOwl@uiuc.edu
Organization: Actuarial Science Program at UIUC
X-Header-1:    Bigotry is not a family value -- boycott Colorado, think twice
X-Header-2:    about Oregon, watch out for Ohio, Idaho, Michigan, Maine, and
X-Header-3:    Florida.
X-Header-5:    Beware lunatic actuaries in the night!
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 20:00:39 GMT

john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore) writes:
>twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce) writes:
>]john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore) writes:

>]>So what? Those who are not openly gay are not going to be discriminated
>]>against for their sexual preference!

>]Ever heard of people being outed, John?

>Only by other gays as a political tactic. Are you telling me we should
>protect gays from each others' outing tactics?

I don't think he is.  As a society (IMO) we should be working towards
eliminating the cause of people not wanting to be outed, which is
unjust discrimination and social stigma.

--
Michael D. Adams	| Since when do you have to agree with people to defend
University of Illinois  | them from injustice?	-- Lillian Hellman
StarOwl@uiuc.edu	| Religion has done love a great service by making it a
Standard Disclaimers    | sin.			-- Anatole France
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,soc.motss
From: jcav@kimbark.uchicago.edu (JohnC)
Subject: persons unclear on the concept (was Re: Lessons of Arizona Boycott)
Reply-To: jcav@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: The Royal Society for Putting Things on Top of Other Things
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 23:55:45 GMT

In article <3925131120011993/A07541/POSSE/1171A2CC3400*@mrgate.uwyo.edu> LASAGA@corral.uwyo.edu (LASAGA) writes:
[rest of the article deleted]

[Rev. Warren Stewart of Phoenix is speaking here]
>   "It's debatable whether gay rights constitute a fundamental right
>guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution," Stewart said.  "We're not talking
                                                       ^^^^^ ^^^ ^^^^^^^
>about personhood here, but behavior.
 ^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^

<choke> <gack>

How does one face the new day each morning knowing that "community leaders"
exist who believe CRAP like this?

One just wants to SLAP the man upside the head.

-- 
  ______     John Cavallino - B0 f++ w c+ g++ k+ s++ e h- pv
  \    /     queer person              
   \  /      EMail: jcav@midway.uchicago.edu
    \/       Talk requests: jcav@quads.chicago.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: cfthb@ux1.cts.eiu.edu (Howard Black)
Subject: Re: God is intolerant of sin!
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 16:17:13 GMT
Organization: Eastern Illinois University

In article <C1A3Bw.Ko3@news.cso.uiuc.edu> StarOwl@uiuc.edu writes:
>cfthb@ux1.cts.eiu.edu (Howard Black) writes:
>
>>    OK so far.  Of course, being homosexual isn't illegal.  
>
>However, homosexual *acts* are illegal in many parts of the U.S.....
>
>Therein lies a problem, eh?

    Absolutely.  The hypocrisy of it is that, in many cases, the acts are
illegal regardless of whether they're done by hets or gays - but the gays
are the targets.
-- 
   ******************************************************************
     Howard Black                             cfthb@ux1.cts.eiu.edu
     Department of Chemistry                  Eastern Illinois Univ. 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: rickertj@athena.cas.vanderbilt.edu (John Rickert)
Subject: Re: Read this if you are Ted Krueger!
Organization: Vanderbilt University Mathematics Department
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 18:07:53 GMT


    The liberal attack on the orthographically challenged continues...
Well, it's easier than having to think about the contents.  Hang in
there, Ted.  You're in good company.


John Rickert					De gustibus non
rickertj@athena.cas.vanderbilt.edu		est disputandum.
-standard disclaimers-				 -- Petronius (?)
From: smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Pick and Choose? (was  Re: God is intolerant of sin!)
Date: 22 Jan 1993 20:44:36 GMT
Organization: Colorado Springs IT Center
NNTP-Posting-Host: fajita19.cs.itc.hp.com

cfthb@ux1.cts.eiu.edu (Howard Black) writes:
>     Fine.  So we're back to a definition of sexual morality, which varies
> from person to person.  Your morality is just fine with me, Walter, as long
> as you don't use it as justification to deny me the same rights that you
> have and take for granted.  How's that sound?

On the money. 

Walter

Xref: sparky alt.politics.homosexuality:10059 talk.religion.misc:27272 alt.rush-limbaugh:14858