HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
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 23:17:47 GMT

In article <1j7tthINNjub@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov> fogarty@sir-c.jpl.nasa.gov (Tim Fogarty) writes:
>In article <1993Jan15.191410.5060@memstvx1.memst.edu>, kebarnes@memstvx1.memst.edu writes:
>|>one can understand their distress at their children being taught
>|>that all forms of sexuality are equally valuable, given that they
>|>would like their children to reflect what they value, not what the
>|>school board's values may be.

not to mention other families, who don't share their religion
or religious beliefs, but don't expect *facts* that they disagree
with to be kept out of the curricula.  and get annoyed when
*their* kids don't get facts because someone else doesn't like 
some of them.  remember, school boards represent *all* parents
in their district/school, not just christian straight ones.  

if you want your children to be educated *only* *within* your
religious beliefs, send them to a religious school or educate
them at home.  publicly funded schools must be diverse, as the
public is, and not promote any religion (separation of church 
and state, remember that?).  

>|> Presumably,
>|>a gay child would be preferred by gay parents who wish to preserve
>|>their own values.

this is quite a presumption, actually.  do you have anything
other than your feeble mind-power to base it on (hint: it's
incorrect).

btw- what are "gay values"?  are they a part of the "gay life-
style"?  

>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.

actually, a *good* parent would want this.  i know many good
straight parents with this attitude, and i know bad gay parents
who don't (except they all want their kids to be *straight*, 
so as not to suffer so much! -- mostly people with fairly
rigid christian backgrounds, very unhappy)... although very
few.  most gay parents *are* accepting for the reason tim gave.  

peg
-proud queer parent

Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: awerling@nmsu.edu (WERLING)
Subject: to Joel 
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 15:04:36 -0700 (MST)
X-Received: by usenet.pa.dec.com; id AA12437; Fri, 22 Jan 93 14:10:44 -0800
X-Received: by inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com; id AA12498; Fri, 22 Jan 93 14:10:42 -0800
X-Received: from dante (dante.NMSU.Edu) by NMSU.Edu (4.1/NMSU-1.18)
	id AA02876; Fri, 22 Jan 93 15:10:34 MST
X-Received: by dante (4.1/NMSU)
	id AA17515; Fri, 22 Jan 93 15:08:30 MST
X-To: awerling@nmsu.edu
X-Cc: alt.politics.homosexuality.usenet
X-Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

..Joel, I forgot your last name and I lost your email address, so I'm
forced to look for you in public.

We talked a while back about your "Fear of a Queer Nation" campaign, and
I'm interested in it, considering a very explosive climate in this bumfuck
town on the verge of a faggot revolution.  Please get in touch with me, if
you're still on the net.

Thanks!

Andrew Werling   awerling@nmsu.edu   yip@acca.nmsu.edu
"Books are burning/ I hope somehow, this will allow/ A phoenix up from the 
			flames"
					---XTC


Xref: sparky alt.politics.homosexuality:10398 soc.motss:58798
From: LASAGA@corral.uwyo.edu (LASAGA)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,soc.motss
Subject: About Calling in Your Opinion on Ban
Date: 27 Jan 93 21:47:24 GMT
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu


	
I just finished making all my calls to the many phone numbers that
were posted (thanks to all who contributed!!).  I wanted to
point out that it was very confusing when I called the various
offices because some places asked me if I was "in favor or opposed
to the ban" and other places asked me if I was "in favor or opposed
to _lifting_ the ban."  SO, I just kept saying, "I'm opposed to the
ban and want it LIFTED."  Anyway, I thought I would warn anyone who
hadn't called yet because those operators sure are in a rush to
move on to the next call!  (I didn't have too much trouble getting 
through, either.) 

Also, if anyone is a bit shy about making such phone calls,
they don't ask you for your name or address (except your congress-
person who might--but only at that number was it requested).  You just
simply have to say you are calling in to register your opinion on
the ban on gays in the military, and they take your "vote," no questions 
asked.  And if you call your senator, even if you do give your name, 
you don't need to clarify whether you are gay or gay-friendly.  
You can just say something like: you understand that the logistics 
may be difficult to work out for lifting the ban but that our 
defense department (or our congress) should not be in the business of 
oppressing _any_ minority or promoting stereotypes.  (Or something 
like that!  :-) )

Finally, did anyone else get a cold response at the Pentagon's
number after saying you were against the ban (for lifting it)?
I may have imagined it, but it seemed cold.  Also, when I called there, 
I said I wanted to register my opinion about the ban, and the woman
said, "So are you for the ban?" and I said no.  I thought that
was clearly not a neutral way to ask the question, but she was
off the phone before I could verbalize my thoughts.

-maria
Xref: sparky alt.politics.homosexuality:10286 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:13827 alt.politics.clinton:21229 alt.politics.bush:16365
From: carlson@ab24.larc.nasa.gov (Ann Carlson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Read this if you are straight!
Date: 25 Jan 1993 15:21:44 GMT
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA  USA
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: ab24.larc.nasa.gov

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!
|

I've got an even better idea.  Lets all pretend we're gay and tell
our bosses *before* they pass any gay rights laws.  After the experience,
we might understand better why they think such laws are necessary.
-- 



*************************************************      
*Dr. Ann B. Carlson (a.b.carlson@larc.nasa.gov) *       O .
*MS 366                                         *         o  _///_ //
*NASA Langley Research Center                   *          <`)=  _<<
*Hampton, VA 23681-0001                         *             \\\  \\
*************************************************
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: Read this if you are straight!
Organization: Elitist Usenet Administrators, Stuff and Nonsense Division
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 05:08:44 GMT

In article <1993Jan27.021500.5818@ncsu.edu> dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>In article <C1HC4I.A1H.1@cs.cmu.edu> 
>garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>
>> As someone else said, neither gay men, lesbians, nor bisexuals
>> are asking for more protection.  They're asking for equal
>> protection.
>
>Do you feel that fat and ugly people should be protected against 
>discrimination?

Yes, especially since "fat" and "ugly" are words without objective
meaning.

Oh, was that supposed to be a trick question?  Sorry to rain on your
parade.

-- 
____ Tim Pierce                / 
\  / twpierce@unix.amherst.edu /               Rocks say goodbye.
 \/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) / 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: smorine@nyx.cs.du.edu (Suzanne Morine)
Subject: Overheard on Denver's Downtown Mall
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix (sponsored by U. of Denver Math/CS dept.)
Disclaimer1: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University of
Disclaimer2: Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
Disclaimer3: control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 93 21:46:21 GMT


Since these guys are self-evidently fools, are clearly "adults,"
and proudly and publicly show their foolishness, I'm giving them
more of a public place for showing their idiocy.

---
Denver, 1-28-93, 10:30AM-ish.

Three businessmen, late 50's or early 60's, walking in a row
on the 16th Street Mall sidewalk.  Marvel how they have no
clue about sidewalk negotiation - temporary rearrangements of
their formation, speed, or location on the wide sidewalk are out
of the question - others must adjust to *them*.  One is the
dominant talker and has been talking about a dreaded trip to
the mountains - "dreaded" because a snowstorm is coming.  He
shifts the conversation.

A: You know, I was thinking about that Aspen.
B: Huh?
A: You know, if you're up there and you're *normal*.  I wonder
   what you'd think of that.       You know, what's going
   on up there.      I mean, wouldn't it just *piss* you *off*
   that that's going on.
B: <dismissively>  Huh.  They're just a side show.  They're
   just a small group.  On the side.
A: I was just thinking, that'd *piss* *me* *off* if I was living
   up there.      Did you see that picture in the paper.     Two
   of them skiing.      In dresses.    I mean...
B: No, I didn't see *that* one.

They board the shuttle bus.

[He was talking about Gay Ski Week in Aspen.  A convention that
chose *not* to boycott Colorado, ironically.]
--
--Suzanne Morine          smorine@nyx.cs.du.edu
--"It is wonderful how much time good people spend fighting the devil.  If
--they would only expend the same amount of energy loving their fellow men,
--the devil would die in his own tracks of ennui."     Helen Keller
Xref: sparky alt.politics.homosexuality:10300 soc.motss:58430
From: may@hpcesma.ce.hp.com (Elaine May)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,soc.motss
Subject: Re: Military Ban on Gays/ FAX NUMBERS
Date: 26 Jan 1993 01:23:25 GMT
Organization: HP Corporate Engineering - Palo Alto, CA
Reply-To: may@hpcesma.ce.hp.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpcesmi.ce.hp.com
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1.4 PL6]

Jennifer S Broekman (jsb16@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu) wrote:
: As for straight boyz being hit on by people they don't find
: attractive, no one should have to deal with that, but you don't see anyone
: banning the straight boyz because they hit on the women, do you? 
Actually, I sort of wish the straight guys would get a clue about sexual
harassment -- kind of an "click" -- when they think about how they feel
about gays in the military.  If they don't want to be around guys who are
coming onto them, perhaps that would give them some insight towards the
problem of sexual harassment towards women.

[Disclaimer: I know that not all straight men are afraid of gay men coming
on to them.  I also know that most of them *don't* sexually harass women.]

--
Elaine May                               Hewlett-Packard Corporate Engineering
may@hpcesma.ce.hp.com		         Palo Alto, California
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: rich@netcom.com (Richard Poppen)
Subject: Re: Black Ski Group Refuses to Boycott (Rocky Mountain News article)
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 01:08:42 GMT

In article <2852501223011993/A22849/POSSE/1171BB322100*@mrgate.uwyo.edu> LASAGA@corral.uwyo.edu (LASAGA) writes:
>
>"Black skiers won't boycott Colorado:  Brotherhood plans to
> open office at Copper Mountain"
>
>   A national black ski organization will not boycott Colorado because
>of Amendment 2, and instead will announce plans to open a satellite
>office in Copper Mountain next year and eventually move its national office
>to Colorado.

Damn!  I wish I'd gone skiing in Arizona.

--Rich
Xref: sparky alt.politics.homosexuality:10100 alt.rush-limbaugh:14889 alt.politics.clinton:21003 alt.politics.bush:16282
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: God is intolerant of sin!
Date: 22 Jan 93 21:55:45 GMT
Organization: LLNL

In article <1jpag0INNl9m@transfer.stratus.com> markc@eomer.hw.stratus.com (Mark Christensen) writes:
>In article <1993Jan21.120809.24378@uswmrg.mrg.uswest.com.mrg.uswest.com> greg_bradt@msmgate.mrg.uswest.com (Greg Bradt aka The Lensman) writes:
: Actually, while some of it's citizens do in fact adhere to such a moral
: code, our country adheres to a =legal= code.  That legal code has some of
: it's roots in your moral code, as well as in many others.
: 
>As it should.  Would homosexuals then allow beastiality?  Beastiality
>is against the law, yet it isn't hurting anyone?  It sexual deviancy
>just like homosexuality.  What's the difference?  Only who your
>partner is...right.  Well, our laws have developed from Judeo/
>Christian morals (for the most part).  Why is murder 
>wrong?  Why is child abuse wrong?  Why is theft wrong?  Why is lying
>wrong?  Because a moral code based on Judeo Christian beliefs says
>so and it has been incorporated into law.

	Historical illiteracy. Nowhere does the Bible even define
"child abuse". Murder and theft are universally frowned upon, at least
_inside_ of social groups, something that a lot of Bible-bangers will
be surprised to learn.

	And why is "bestiality" (do you know what it is?) so terrible?

: >Only in the past 30 or so years have we started down
: >the path of total decadence. 
: 
: 30 years???  Christian Moralists have been saying that for as long as there
: have been Christian Moralists.  
: 
>Not just decadence...that has been occurring since Adam and Eve sinned.
>TOTAL depravity...as in NO GOOD found.  As in Sodom and Gomorrah.

	So what? Adam, Eve, Sodom, and Gomorrah are pure fiction.


-- 
/Loren Petrich, the Master Blaster
/lip@s1.gov
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: Lifestyle Choices (was  Re: Sexuality)
Organization: Elitist Usenet Administrators, Stuff and Nonsense Division
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1993 03:00:27 GMT

In article <1993Jan5.000636.6549@anasazi.com> Brian Douglass,
briand@anasazi.com writes:

>If we had a law/series of laws that outlawed discrimination as a general
>activity, without having to enumerate every possible act imaginable, then
>ALL Americans would be protected against discrimination, regardless of what
>"class" they see themselves.

Like the class of the incompetent?

-- 
____ Tim Pierce                / 
\  / twpierce@unix.amherst.edu /               Rocks say goodbye.
 \/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) / 
Xref: sparky alt.politics.homosexuality:10369 ca.politics:10706
From: zeng@mth.msu.edu (Zhonggang Zeng)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: A question about gays in military
Date: 27 Jan 93 08:07:18 GMT
Organization: Michigan State University
NNTP-Posting-Host: nemo.mth.msu.edu

In article <1993Jan27.055513.20331@netcom.com> rich@netcom.com (Richard Poppen) writes:
>In article <1k4vcaINNgju@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu> zeng@mth.msu.edu
>(Zhonggang Zeng) writes:
>>If the armed forces open some divisions to homosexuals, and ban them in
>>the remaining units. Does the homosexual community accept that solution?
>>
>>To me, this is the only fair solution. Homosexuals would not be discharged
>>and straight soldiers would not be forced to sleep next to a gay either.
>>
>>I'm ready to be enlighted if somebody give good reason that I'm wrong.
>
>Well, Mr. Zeng, let me ask you a question in return.  Some people don't
>like Asians.  But we allow them in the military, of course.  Suppose we
>decided to make accommodations for the people who don't like Asians by
>making some divisions open to Asians, and banning them in the remaining
>units.  Would you find that acceptable?  Non-straight people think your
>suggestion sounds like that.
>

If Asians were such a problem, then designating some Asian divisions would
sound good to me. The top priority of military is winning wars anyway.

Change needs time. I believe that PARTIALLY lifting the ban would be good
for both sides. When gays and voluntary straights get along in that
divisions. The theory against gays in military would lost its ground. 

>Gay, lesbian, and bisexual people are entitled to be treated like other
>people; if someone is uncomfortable with us, it is their problem, not
>ours.  It is not a reason to treat us like second-class citizens, or
>second-class soldiers.
>
>--Rich

Magic Johnson wanted to play basketball which he entitled. Karl Mallon(?) 
was uncomfortable with him. It's indeed the problem of Karl, not Magic's,
because infection in games is virtually impossible. However, Magic 
quit himself the second time in a responsible way and gained the 
support of fans. I really admire Magic's choice. He could have stayed
in NBA, then the only thing he would have gained would be more bashing
besides money. Who wants to enjoy a Magic's layup with every one yields
their way?

It appears that gays will win the lifting of ban. I'm affraid that
they will get more bashing and nonacceptance as well. Aggresiveness
is not the way to win acceptance, which I guess is what you really 
need.
From: buckmr@rpi.edu (Ron Buckmire)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: ELEVEN STATES with anti-gay initiatives planned
Date: 23 Jan 93 20:54:44 GMT
X-Received: by usenet.pa.dec.com; id AA24004; Sat, 23 Jan 93 12:55:04 -0800
X-Received: by inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com; id AA21648; Sat, 23 Jan 93 12:54:52 -0800
X-Received: from client.its.rpi.edu (vccsouth24.its.rpi.edu) by rpi.edu (4.1/SMHUB41);
	id AA00726; Sat, 23 Jan 93 15:54:46 EST for alt.politics.homosexuality.usenet@decwrl.dec.com
X-Received: by client.its.rpi.edu (4.1/SUB16);
	id AA03722; Sat, 23 Jan 93 15:54:45 EST for bisexu-l@brownvm.brown.edu
X-To: alt.politics.homosexuality.usenet
X-Cc: bisexu-l@brownvm.brown.edu



_NEWSWEEK_ magazine has reported that anti-gay ballot initiatives are being
organised in 11 states, namely: 

MICHIGAN
IDAHO
OHIO
WASHINGTON
MONTANA 
MINNESOTA
MISSOURI
IOWA
CALIFORNIA
MAINE
GEORGIA.

   
---
RON BUCKMIRE, 11 Colvin Circle, Troy, NY 12180-3735. ``D.C. in 93!''
vox:(518)-276-8910 fax:(518)-276-6920 buckmr@rpi.edu buckmr@rpitsmts.bitnet
 92 of the 400 richest Americans *inherited* their wealth. Source: _Details_.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: fritzs@microsoft.com (Fritz Sands)
Subject: Re: God is intolerant of sin!
Date: 26 Jan 93 00:33:54 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <1jpag0INNl9m@transfer.stratus.com> markc@eomer.hw.stratus.com (Mark Christensen) writes:
| >
| As it should.  Would homosexuals then allow beastiality?  Beastiality
| is against the law, yet it isn't hurting anyone?

There are plenty of bestialists around, most of them het.  How many
sheep jokes do you want to hear?

So -- do you have a moral problem with bestiality?  Is it morally worse
to fuck an animal than to kill it and eat it?

|   It sexual deviancy
| just like homosexuality.  What's the difference?  Only who your
| partner is...right.

Just for grins... Could you come up with a definition of "deviancy" that
is not religiously-based?


|   Well, our laws have developed from Judeo/
| Christian morals (for the most part).  Why is murder 
| wrong?  Why is child abuse wrong?  Why is theft wrong?  Why is lying
| wrong?  Because a moral code based on Judeo Christian beliefs says
| so and it has been incorporated into law.

Um, no.

First, Judeo-Christian beliefs vary on whether killing someone is wrong.
Can you say "Torquemada" or "Salem" or "Crusade"?  As far as child
abuse goes, there is always "Spare the rod and spoil the child".

Second, one can certainly come up with a moral code which does not
allow murder, theft, or child abuse without needed references to
Judeo-Christian beliefs.

| >>Only in the past 30 or so years have we started down
| >>the path of total decadence. 
| >
| >30 years???  Christian Moralists have been saying that for as long as there
| >have been Christian Moralists.  
| >
| Not just decadence...that has been occurring since Adam and Eve sinned.
| TOTAL depravity...as in NO GOOD found.  As in Sodom and Gomorrah.

Where are you finding "NO GOOD"?  I have read that the "sin" of Sodom was
lack of hospitality.  If one of your modern Sodoms is San Francisco, I
suggest that you read accounts of civic actions in the wake of the
earthquake of a few years ago.

    Fritz

Newsgroups:  alt.politics.homosexuality,talk.religion.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh
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 19:20:14 GMT
Organization: Colorado Springs IT Center
NNTP-Posting-Host: fajita19.cs.itc.hp.com

kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) writes:
> Is it then possible, Mark, that those who condemn homosexual acts without
> question have missed the intent of God completely? Were Moses and Paul
> above reproach?

In my book, they were not.  I also don't agree with accepting things 
without question.  My daughter will be raised Catholic, and will be 
taught to never be afraid to question things.  Just because someone 
thinks homosexuality is not OK, doesn't mean they are blind sheep 
accepting whatever they are told.  Plenty of people find homosexuality 
objectionable without religious motivation at all; just on the 
basis of being unnatural and (to them) physically revolting.  

Walter

Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton
From: rossco@iastate.edu (Ross Stenersen)
Subject: Re: Gay marriage
Keywords: same sex couples
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames, IA
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 16:54:46 GMT

In article <1221@bug.UUCP> stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce) writes:
> *I said that homosexuals have the same rights we all have.  Others said,
> *what about marriage?  Well, as has been pointed out, homosexuals can marry,
> *so they are treated in this regard just like everyone else.  However, this
> *isn't what those who object mean.  They want legal marriage redefinited to
> *include same sex couples.  But why stop there?  Why not arbitrary groups?
> *Why not a man and his favorite sheep, etc.?  Indeed, why not?  Wouldn't
> *that be more fair?  In fact, some libertarians have proposed just that.
> *But the marriage is not about being fair.  Its purpose is not just to make
> *couples feel good about themselves.
If the sheep can say "I do", sign all of the necessary documents, why not?
I'm sorry, but it seems incredibly obvious to me that there is a huge
difference between an animal such a sheep and another human animal.  You see,
we can communicate with each other verbally and express something we like to
call "consent".

Ross Stenersen                              "Ignorance and prejudice
                                            "And fear
rossco@iastate.edu                          "Walk hand in hand"
rossco@aol.com                                  --Rush  ("Witch Hunt")
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality