HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: taylorje@rintintin.Colorado.EDU (TAYLOR JASON EDMOND)
Subject: Re: Support the boycott (was Re: Don't boycott all of Colorado)
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 19:54:40 GMT

In article <BxyAnw.FzB@unix.amherst.edu> twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce) writes:
>In article <1992Nov18.230922.8206@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> taylorje@rintintin.Colorado.EDU (TAYLOR JASON EDMOND) writes:
>
>>  Speaking of fair-weather gay-rights activists...
>
>Indeed.
>
>>   Notice how the strongest supporters of boycotting Colorado live outside the
>>state?
>
>No, not really.  Can you elaborate?

   Sure, I can elaborate. You're not from Colorado. Melinda is not from
Colorado. So far, you two have been the biggets Colorad-bashers on this
board. Have you seen any posts from users within Colorado advocating a
boycott of their own state?

>
>>A boycott is a very easy thing to talk about when it doesn't impact your
>>everyday lives, isn't it?
>
>Uh, dumbfuck.  It's a very hard thing to do if you live *in* Colorado.


   Oh, so that makes it ok for you to do, doesn't it?
   (By the way, what's with the "dumbfuck?" I thought this was a discussion...)

>
>>   What should those of us who live here do? "Suffer for the cause?"
>
>Move, if you like.  Apologize for the sake of the state.
>

   Move. Now *there's* a realistic solution.

>>   Why don't you "boycott Colorado" people get of your moral high-horses and
>>face the facts: you are ALIENATING people like me who were (and in a sense
>>still are) loyal to this cause, but are fast becoming disenchanted by your
>>short-sighted tactics.
>
>Then I daresay you were never particularly "loyal" to begin with.
>Anyone who can be offended by the fight for equal protection under the
>law possibly upsetting their nice idyllic applecart is a couple screws
>short of a paintgun.
>

   Have you given up your economic livelihood for this cause? Probably not.
Just because I'm not willing to accept what could be a drastic decline in
my standard of living does *NOT* mean that I do not support gay rights. I
am not offended by a fight for equal rights. I actively fight for equal rights.
What I am offended by is people lumping me in with my bigoted neighbors and
hitting us all with economic boycotts, regardless of the consequences.
   
   If that is not generalization, I don't know what is.


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

-Jason

"Just because I'm a Coloradan does not mean I hate."


Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,talk.politics.misc
From: twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce)
Subject: Re: Colorado Amendment 2: The First Fatality
Organization: Elitist Usenet Administrators, Stuff & Nonsense Division
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 02:22:40 GMT

In article <10625@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM> mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:

>|>Isn't the Catholic
>|>church one of the biggest money making organizations in the world?
>         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>The same could be said of organizations like Greenpeace, and People for
>the American Way.

I don't believe it can.

-- 
____ Tim Pierce                / 
\  / twpierce@unix.amherst.edu /               Rocks say goodbye.
 \/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) / 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,co.politics,co.general,talk.politics.misc,co.politics.amend2.discuss,boulder.general,csu.general
From: larry@bradley.bradley.edu (L. D. Stratton)
Subject: Re: The use of the Bible to argue here
Organization: Bradley University
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 92 22:24:50 GMT

In <1992Nov20.201315.27229@netcom.com> robj@netcom.com (Rob Jellinghaus) writes:

>Recently someone on this newsgroup mentioned the "Pat Robertson Bible"
>--apparently a special edition of the Bible with certain awkward parts
>(chunks of Leviticus, parts of the New Testament) removed.  The parts
>which remain are those which support Robertson's hyperconservative
>agenda.  The Bible is becoming an explicitly political tool, wielded
   This certainly isn't new.  Both the King James version and the Catholic
   (Duay(?)) versions were politically inspired.  As for leaving out or
   including certain aspects, Ecclesiasticus, Wisdom, Tobias and Judith
   are a few of the Books in RC Cannon that are not in Protestant Cannon.
   Another example is the Book of Common Prayer of the Anglican Church.

   That isn't to say it is right or wrong.  The most interesting story
   I can relate is the person who told me he hated all the 'modern' 
   translations.  After all, they were written by men.  He wanted the
   'original' word of God --- the King James Bible.   I don't think
   he understood my regalious laughter.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (droopy)
Subject: quick question for the phobes
	
Hobbes: Why do we play war not peace? 	CALVIN: Too few role models.
  
Organization: Clarkson University
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 13:42:19 GMT


Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: gsmith@lauren.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de (Gene W. Smith)
Subject: Re: Homosexuality is normal?
Keywords: homosexuality
Organization: IWR, University of Heidelberg, Germany
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 92 14:45:08 GMT

In article <BxzBIr.JHy@nic.umass.edu> quilty@titan.ucc.umass.edu
(Humberto Humbertoldi) writes:

>The only points made, as far as I can tell (and both are entirely
>correct, and important) are: a) Human's all have a capacity for both
>hetero- and homosexual desires and behavior.

I've got evidence this is false.  Do you have any it is true?

>Essentialist ideology which denies (a) can often have a harmful
>psychological effect on people when they find their desires/actions do
>not match up with the ideology.

The point of the article was that essentialism was ideological, which
you are echoing above.  To see why this is crap, please note
that your above objection is *entirely* ideological, and nowhere
do you give any evidence for your positions, or even give the
impression evidence is needed.

In other words, ideology is there on both sides of this issue.  The
important consideration is evidence, which both of you ignore or
disparage.
-- 
     Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/IWR/Ruprecht-Karls University 
               gsmith@kalliope.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: robj@netcom.com (Rob Jellinghaus)
Subject: Re: The use of the Bible to argue here
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 20:13:15 GMT

In article <1992Nov19.143240.44945@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> rminor@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu writes:
>It is disappointing to see how the Bible is used so ignorantly in this
>news group. 
...
>Get the facts; then argue.  Current fundamentalism, remember, is an
>American phenomena, not a first-century Near Eastern one; and the
>interpretations of Leviticus and Paul they use are out of touch with
>what those texts actually say.  When will those who claim to take the
>Bible seriously take it seriously enough to study it.

Unfortunately, I fear you have little hope of seeing the general
amount of actual Biblical scholarship increasing here anytime soon.
The people who generally begin the Bible threads here, in my
experience, are people who are seeking to use the Bible to justify
their antipathy towards homosexuals and homsexuality.  They want to
believe that the Lord has decreed that their hatred is holy.  Evidence
to the contrary--whether it is anecdotal, scientific, psychological,
or hermeneutic--is ignored.  Actual discussion and debate is the
_last_ thing these bigots are interested in.

Recently someone on this newsgroup mentioned the "Pat Robertson Bible"
--apparently a special edition of the Bible with certain awkward parts
(chunks of Leviticus, parts of the New Testament) removed.  The parts
which remain are those which support Robertson's hyperconservative
agenda.  The Bible is becoming an explicitly political tool, wielded
in the name of religious absolutism to grant divine sanction to those
who want to prevent all forms of social and cultural change.  It is a
sickening process to watch, but I have hopes that the strategy is
fundamentally doomed; you cannot stop social evolution by decree, and
any strategy based on manipulation and concealing information will
slowly fail when confronted with the truth.  The 1992 election results
are a step in the right direction.

-- 
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_
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,co.politics,co.general,talk.politics.misc,co.politics.amend2.discuss,boulder.general,csu.general
From: mike@gordian.com (Michael A. Thomas)
Subject: Re: Support the boycott (was Re: Don't boycott all of Colorado)
Organization: Gordian; Costa Mesa, CA
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 22:49:48 GMT

In article <1992Nov23.213341.17163@col.hp.com>, vanm@col.hp.com (Van Martin) writes:
>   Divine revelation un-necessary, unless you consider the Dallas Gay
>   News divine revelation.  Reference:  "Gays, AIDS and You" by Enrique
>   Rueda page 17.  1983, before blood screening, Robert Schwab, now
>   dead of AIDS suggested in the Dallas Gay News that all gay males
>   should give blood, whatever it takes to gain national suupport 
>   for AIDS research; if that includes blood terrorism, so be it.

    If I recall correctly, 1983 was before anybody knew what caused
AIDS. It was not known what caused it, and we definitely did not know
the vector. Therefore, I can only deduce that your source is a complete
fabrication. Also, unless saw the *original* paper, I would doubt the
source as well. Bald faced lying is well within the province of morality
when fundies start prattling on about gay people.
    In any case even if true, one lone person's rant does not a majority
make. There are millions of gay people and I have never, ever, heard of
anybody calling or even talking about such a reprehensible action. 
I'm sure you wouldn't care to be tarred as being another Torquemada,
but suggesting that all gay people (or even a signinficant minority) 
wanted to poison the blood supply is like saying all Christians are
bloody murderers.

>   Van "Facts R Us" Martin

  Because you read it one of your swill pot fundy periodicals does
not make it a "fact," dude. Have you ever listened to _It Ain't 
Necessarily So_ in _Porgy and Bess_? I suggest you listen and take
it to heart.
-- 

		Michael Thomas	(mike@gordian.com)
	"I don't think Bambi Eyes will get you that flame thrower..."  
		-- Hobbes to Calvin
		USnail: 20361 Irvine Ave Santa Ana Heights, Ca,	92707-5637
		PaBell: (714) 850-0205 (714) 850-0533 (fax)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (droopy)
Subject: Re: Why I hate Homos
Organization: Clarkson University
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 15:45:52 GMT

greco@elec.uq.oz.au (The Gereat White Hooter Hunter) writes:

>I just do, alright.

To quote the title of a popular MTV show:
"Like we care"
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: shore@dinah.tc.cornell.edu (Melinda Shore)
Subject: Re: What about OUR rights
Organization: Cornell Theory Center
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 19:30:00 GMT

[]
Ah, I finally get it - there are only so many rights to
go around, and if we start treating everybody equally then
Straight Christian White Guys might start to lose some of
their special rights.  Therefore, WE MUST KEEP THE RABBLE
DOWN.

Thanks so much for explaining it so clearly.
--
           Hate is not a family value.  Boycott Colorado

       Melinda Shore - Cornell Theory Center - shore@tc.cornell.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: llatwood@unix.amherst.edu (LAURA LINSON ATWOOD)
Subject: Interesting Satire
Organization: Amherst College
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 06:10:50 GMT


: Measure No. 9
: ARGUMENT IN FAVOR
: 
: According to the book of Leviticus in the Bible, oyster-eating,
: crossbreeding cattle, shaving a beard, wearing clothing made of mixed
: fibers, cursing one's parents and adultery are just as immoral as
: homosexuality.  If the OCA's "No Special Rights" Committee wants to
: take one of the 3,000 year-old laws of ritual holiness from Leviticus
: and put it into the Bill of Rights in the state constitution, they
: should be sincere enough to put all the rest of Leviticus into the
: constitution as well.  It's a simple matter of respect for these
: historic laws to treat them consistently.
: 
: We at the Special Righteousness Committee are just as offended by
: oyster-eating, shaving and mixed fibers as the OCA is offended by
: homosexuality, and we have just as much right as the OCA does to change
: the state constitution to require government discrimination against
: people whose behavior we don't like.
: 
: My friends, do you want public schools teaching your children that
: shaving is a legitimate and equal alternative style to a normal and
: healthy beard?  Would you want to be forced to hire an oyster-eater
: to direct your church choir?  Adam and Eve wore fig leaves -- 100% fig
: leaves -- and this is divine proof that those disgustingly unnatural
: cotton/polyester blends are sinful.  And when the OCA was analyzing the
: threat to traditional family values, we don't know how they managed to
: overlook adultery!  Why, there's a lot more adultery than homosexuality
: going on out there, and extrapolations from OCA statistics show that 90
: percent of the people who have engaged in sexual perversions are
: heterosexual ("straight").
: 
: The state condones adultery by not punishing it with death as required
: by Leviticus.  It promotes oyster-eating by licensing seafood
: restaurants, and it allows people to take mixed fibers out of the
: closet and flaunt them right out in public without being fired or
: evicted!  The state is encouraging sin!
: 
: If the OCA can have the special right to make their personal moral
: agenda into public policy, then anyone else should be able to amend the
: state Bill of Rights to eliminate basic human rights for people who
: they don't like.
: 
: Let's put ALL of Leviticus into the constitution! A "yes" vote is the
: first step in facilitating our militant moral agenda.
: 
: 		    AGREE WITH US OR BURN IN HELL!
: 
: 
: Special Righteousness Committee
: P.O. Box 1851
: Portland, OR 97207
: 
: (This information furnished by M. Dennis Moore, Chair, Special
: Righteousness Committee.)



Hope you enjoyed it!

-Laura
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Don't Promote it as a lifestyle
Summary: Don't promote Perry as being worthy of notice, either.
Organization: Some place no one in Buffalo has ever heard of
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 19:46:35 GMT

In article <BxxAvH.4tF@acsu.buffalo.edu> v115r4q5@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Perry M Jowsey) writes:
>
>   I understand that homosexuals in today's society face widespread discrimina-
>tion and abuse, but instead of taking a hint, it seems to make the gay commun-
>ity want to be in limelight even more.  America does not wish to see gay pro-
>testors fighting for gay rights and preaching their platform to those who give
>them the time.  While physically assaulting a homosexual may be wrong, these 
>acts are only encouraged by the homosexuals themselves.  If they would take the
>time to realize that their way of living is wrong and more importantly that 
>society doesn't want to hear it falsely declared a lifestyle, they would realize
>the way to combat this discrimination is to adopt a normal kind of lifestyle and
>stop corrupting others.  
> See Old Testament, Leviticus 20:13

Boy, talk about a rationalization straight out of Kristallnacht!  I suppose
next you'll claim that you're being forced to abuse gay people?

Take your load of horseshit and keep it in Buffalo.

--PLH, straight, and just slightly pissed

-- 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,co.politics,co.general,talk.politics.misc,co.politics.amend2.discuss,boulder.general,csu.general
From: pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness)
Subject: Re: Colorado Amendment 2
Organization: SSDT SPS, Motorola Inc., Austin TX
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 20:39:31 GMT

In article <BxxuC7.Kq5@csn.org> kenw@teal.csn.org (Ken Waletzki) writes:
>Look, I don't care what sexual orientation anybody is. Amendment #2 is
>worng BECAUSE to pass a law that prohibits passing other laws, regardless
	       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>of what it is about, is just wrong.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Huh?  These kind of laws exist everywhere, from the Constitution on down.

Think of the Supreme Court forbidding state laws that enforced segregation.
Is it wrong for the Federal Government to forbid state Goverment from
passing laws concerning interstate commerce? States are not allowed to
have export taxes, or forbid the importation of trash to their state.
The pending Pro-Choice Act in Congress, that will forbid any State regulation
of abortion.
States Governments that force local Governments to fund schooling in
certain ways, mandate welfare benefits in certain ways, etc.


Pat
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: st902753@pip.cc.brandeis.edu
Subject: HOW DID AIDS START IN THE UNITED STATES? INFO ON MICHAELANGELO AND 
Reply-To: st902753@pip.cc.brandeis.edu
Organization: Brandeis University
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 18:24:56 GMT

Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,co.politics,co.general,talk.politics.misc,co.politics.amend2.discuss,boulder.general,csu.general
From: vanm@col.hp.com (Van Martin)
Subject: Re: Colorado Amendment 2: The First Fatality
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 00:03:47 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: HP Colorado Springs Division

 Angela Dire's "Update" article on Marty Booker's suicide was indeed a
difficult piece.  Mr.  Booker, dying from AIDS contracted through his
homosexual lifestyle, was aware, per the article, of ways to prevent
AIDS (his aunt helped him research a report on AIDS and preventing its
spread).  Why then would he ignore his own counsel and contract AIDS
by continuing his known-dangerous lifestyle?  I am not judging Mr.
Booker, I just don't understand the mentality that would continue in a
deadly course, particularly when knowledge of the danger is there.

 Homosexuality is a physically destructive behavior.  Ms.  Dire's
sensationalizing of a tortured man's suicide note, making CFV the
"trigger man" was a clear attempt to further the homosexual ideal -
vilify anyone who disagrees with the homosexual agenda (see "The
Overhauling of Straight America Waging Peace Part Two" by Kirk and
Pill, Guide Magazine, Nov.  1987 page 10 first paragraph - actually
read the whole thing, it is enlightening to see what the homosexual
agenda looks like from the homosexual viewpoint).

 CFV has no "Auschwitz" in mind for the homosexual community as
mis-guided Mr. Booker wanted to believe.  Since he lived in Colorado
Springs, he never had special protection, nothing changed for him.
Unfortunately, depression is not much for logic. 

 What Amendment 2 states is that homosexual, bi-sexual or hetero-
sexual behavior is not a valid reason to demand government dollars be
allocated to pursue claims of discrimination.  The Supreme Court
agreed that sodomy laws do not abridge "due process" (Hardwick v.
Bowers, 1986), so behavior is not considered an "unalienable right".

 Homosexuals can still pursue wrongful-discharge suits, but their
behavior is not sufficient evidence of wrongdoing on the part of the
employer.  Amendment 2 keeps Coloradoans on equal footing in the Civil
Rights arena.  No special rights or considerations are appropriate for
a group whose BEHAVIOR sets them apart from the (vast) majority.

Van Martin		
vanm@col.hp.com

All ideas expressed here are my own, 
though you ought to consider that I am right

"All the ways of a man are pure in his own eyes,
     But the LORD weighs the spirit"  
Prov. 16:2
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: entropy@world.std.com (The Entropic one)
Subject: Re: Why I hate Homos
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 15:04:41 GMT

In article <greco.722145078@s1.elec.uq.oz.au> greco@elec.uq.oz.au (The Gereat White Hooter Hunter) writes:
>I just do, alright.

I just hate bigots, alright?

-- 
------  Linux, Religion, and electronic shopping all in one place!
\    / Repent of Bean eating, MS-DOS, OS/2, and windows NT, no sales man
 \  / will hassle you, no priest will sacrifice you. Free 9600 baud download.
  \/ Call the Virtual World Information Systems BBS at 508-793-9568        
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: w2lee@argo.acs.oakland.edu (Walter Lee)
Subject: Re: Libertarians in Canada? Elsewhere?
Reply-To: w2lee@argo.acs.oakland.edu
Organization: Oakland University, Rochester, MI
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 03:24:06 GMT


I seem to recall there being a laissez-faire sort of candidate for President of
Poland, who had spent most of his life in Canada.  And I seem to recall the
news mentioning him as a member of a Canadian organization called the
Libertarian Party.

I'm pretty sure I heard something to this effect, but alas I wasn't paying
attention.
Organization: The American University - University Computing Center
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 17:59:27 EST
From: Robert Sterling <RSTERLI@auvm.american.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Attack of the Clingore

I would be horrified to see Bill Clinton assassinated.  It would
be the worst thing that could happen.  If he were killed, we'd have
to hear about him on television, and read about about him in the
papers for the rest of our lives, just like those damn Kennedy's.
Far better to let him fade into obscurity like Jimmy Carter.  The
Leftists have plenty of martyrs already, let's hope they don't get
another.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: Collective bargaining (was Re: Help Dis Totenberg!)
Keywords: Wages, competitive markets, unions, monopoly
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 08:11:45 GMT

In article <kbanaian.36.0@bernard.pitzer.claremont.edu> kbanaian@bernard.pitzer.claremont.edu (King Banaian) writes:
}In article <MDL.92Nov20161456@ak.cypress.com> mdl@cypress.com (Matt Landrum) writes:
}
}>What is the Libertarian position on collective bargaining?
}>Are there any regulations that a Libertarian would support
}>in order to insure that those not possessing capital
}>would be able to profit in proportion to their contribution?
}>
}>Should companies be allowed to replace striking workers
}>with permanent replacements (I'm fairly sure of this one,
}>but I wanted to hear someone elaborate)?
}
}I haven't read the preamble nor the Libertarian platform.  I agree so often 
}with what they say I didn't bother to check the fine print.  But it's safe 
}to say that Libertarians would not support collective bargaining, and it's 
}for very sound economic reasons.

It's better to say that as libertarians, we'd be neutral.  We wouldn't
prohibit it, but we wouldn't have supporting regulations beyond ones concerning
coercion, either.  It may be uneconomical, and few may do it, but if this
would be the case or not the law shoulde silent on the issue.

You're probably right, it is uneconomical.  And we'd repeal the prohibition
of "yellow dog" contracts, maximum work weeks, minimum wages, and much workplace
safety regulation (OSHA would be tossed out, probably), so many unionists
would contrue us as anti-union.  But we wouldn't use the army to break up
peaceful strikes, either.

Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! - Think Universally, Act Selfishly
starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu

"True greatness consists in the use of a powerful understanding to enlighten
oneself and others." - Voltaire