HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mara@panix.com (Mara Chibnik)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Re: Liberty (was something relevant about CO-2 long ago...)
Date: 26 Dec 92 11:52:50 GMT
Followup-To: /dev/null
Organization: (getting there)


(Note the followups line, please.  If you really need to answer,
send me email, but I should warn you that I'm about at the limit on
this one.)

todd@reed.edu (Todd Ellner) writes:

 >There are already plenty of genderless languages, Swahili and Farsi
 >come to mind. The absence of gendered pronouns for hundreds of years
 >has not made Persian or East African men into paragons egalitarian
 >virtue.

This is irrelevant.  I didn't see anyone arguing that removing
gendered pronouns from English would result in an egalitarian
society.  I _did_ see a couple of women who complained that the
so-called "inclusive masculine" didn't make _them_ feel included,
and some men who dismissed their statement as not important enough
to be a "real" issue, or that there should be a drive to sell
new words to the Great Public in some neat catchy way that would
make the Great Public buy them.  (It was one of these men, it seemed
to me, who first raised the issue of genderless pronouns.) And I
saw some women (I was one) get angry that the men answering saw no
need whatsoever to accommodate to the feelings of those women who
say that the "inclusive masculine" excludes them.

Since the thread really seems to have started in soc.bi I may have
missed the part that led into this.  But since you're here, and
since you raised the issue, let me point out that you have the
relationship backward.  What I, at least, would like to see is
first, acknowledgment of the significance of women's reactions on
this issue-- as a matter of course and as a matter more important
than whether using "they" when the antecedent is "everyone" or
"someone" grates on any particular ears, and second the
acknowledgment that masculine pronouns do not include women.
(Studies show that using "inclusive masculine" language encourages
people to develop mental images that retain the masculine.  I have
no sources handy, but I've seen references to these studies in the
Wall Street Journal, of all places.)

I don't think that this is a soc.motss discussion any more.  I'm
answering here because the preceding exchanges made me extremely
angry-- angrier than I think I've ever been before by things in
soc.motss.  (And it has nothing really to do with the fact that I
got flamed, either; _that_ was just funny.)


-- 

  Mara Chibnik
  mara@panix.com                Life is too important to be taken seriously.
Newsgroups: soc.motss
From: tcarlin@athena.mit.edu (Thomas B Carlin)
Subject: The WRONG Cure
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 20:48:34 GMT

=====================================
(1)

>>Regarding a previous post that got a good deal of response about the thought
>>of curing homosexuality, most people on the net seem strongly opposed to whole
>>idea of a cure.  But what about those people that really struggle with their
>>sexuality and really don't want to be "homosexual."  Most often they deny their
>>sexual feelings for religion reasons.  I know-I know the Bible may not be very

(2 - reply)

>Well!  There was a time when I _thought_ I didn't want to be homosexual.
>As I discovered, it wasn't because I wanted to be straight, it was because
>the Christians messed me up so much that I was ashamed of being gay!
>(Yes, I did read a book called _You Don't Have to be Gay_)

>I suppose some of these same people have been so brainwashed by Christian
>groups that they can't accept themselves. 

Remember, Christianity can be cured!  Thanks to their help, only 1 out of 5
people in the world are now Christian, and that number is dwindling.  Send
your money NOW!

Tom
Newsgroups: soc.motss
From: solovay@netcom.com (Andrew Solovay)
Subject: Re: Why not cure homosexuality?
Organization: Free Faerie Front
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 20:30:34 GMT

I shouldn't post on this thread. You'd think I'd have learned my
lesson by now. (As if...)

In article <92364.223718MEH124@psuvm.psu.edu> MEH124@psuvm.psu.edu writes:
>What if by some outside chance these conservative Christians are correct in
>their beliefs?  Why be so hard on those that want a cure for what they feel
>is wrong?  I have seen a number of books that are supposed to help people
>overcome, or at least live with, their homosexual feelings.  Many of the books
>even claim a 65% success rate (e.g., "Pursuing Sexual Wholeness," by Andrew
>Comiskey--a recovered homosexual himself).

Well, I'll assume you meant this post innocently. Let me offer
some advice: Don't talk about "curing",  that implies a sickness.
Some of us don't like the connotations. Same with phrases like
"recovered homosexual".

Now, suppose you meant "changing". Can't be done now, but who
knows about the future? By way of analogy, there is nothing wrong
with being a man; in fact, I rather like it. But some people who
are born male are unhappy with it, and would like to change. We
don't talk about "curing" their maleness, since being male isn't
a disease (whatever some people might think...); but we are
learning how to *change* the situation. Gender reassignment is
still imperfect at best, but we're learning more all the time.

In a hundred years, it may be the same for homosexuality (and, of
course, heterosexuality). People who feel uncomfortable about
their orientation might be able to change it at will. For that
matter, they may be able to change their left-or-right
handedness, or eye color, or height. Most people probably
wouldn't make this change, but for some (e.g., people with
religious problems, as you note) this might be the best route.
But this option is still far in the future. For the time being,
if you're born green-eyed, you're stuck with it.

Options? Well, if you're somewhat attracted to both sexes, you
have less of a problem. You can probably pursue the "heterosexual
lifestyle" middling well, even if you're more attracted to your
own sex. (I expect most of the "successes" you talk about are of
that nature.) If you're mainly or entirely attracted to your own
sex, there's still one option, namely celibacy. Granted, celibacy
is a much more unnatural "lifestyle" than being homosexually
active, but if it's good enough for the Pope, it may be right for
you. Again, this may be a good solution if your religion is
incompatible with being a "practicing homosexual". (A better
option is, of course, to change religions.)

There's one thing that you *can't* change-- you'll always be
attracted to people of your own sex. The sooner you accept this,
the better. No "cure" has changed that, no matter what Oprah's
guestsmight tell you.
-- 
Andrew Solovay    

"I is not now, nor has I ever been, a Human Bein'!"
                ---Pogo Possum
From: nelson@reed.edu (Nelson Minar)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Re: Private antidiscrimination policies in CO
Date: 3 Jan 93 06:02:37 GMT
Article-I.D.: reed.1993Jan3.060237.2375
Reply-To: nelson@reed.edu (Nelson Minar)
Organization: Reed College, Portland, OR

In article <32@bbx.basis.com> scott@bbx.basis.com (Scott Amspoker) writes:
[about the newest phobe-idiot on motss]
>When will they learn?  When will they learn?

they won't. The question to ask is, when will they be dead?
                __
nelson@reed.edu \/   Delicious & Nutritious breakfast cereals shot from guns!
From: flar@bendenweyr.Eng.Sun.COM (Jim Graham)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Re: Is it actually 10%??
Date: 26 Dec 1992 22:27:06 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Distribution: world
Reply-To: flar@bendenweyr.Eng.Sun.COM (Jim Graham)
NNTP-Posting-Host: bendenweyr

rhayden@oracle.com (Ronald Hayden) writes:
|> tdober@llnl.gov (TDO) writes:
|>    rich.bellacera@amail.amdahl.com wrote:
|> 
|>    [...]
|> 
|>    > It is this irrational fear that has sealed the suicide attempts of many
|>    > young men.
|> 
|>    ...and women.
|> 
|> Hmm.  Good point.  I'm curious -- does anyone know how many teenage
|> women kill themselves over this?  Somehow I bet the statistics are
|> different between women and men on this one...

And it would be even more interesting in light of recent discussions
if the difference was that the statistics for men exist.

				...jim
Xref: sparky soc.motss:54176 news.answers:4770
From: Diane
Subject: Re: "cures" for homosexuality
Organization: University of Missouri
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 92 13:55:46 CST

In article <1992Dec22.174915.14562@midway.uchicago.edu>
elle@kimbark.uchicago.edu (Ellen Keyne Seebacher) writes:
 
>In article <1992Dec22.170637.15042@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>
> mudge@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (MUDGE BRIAN WAYNE) writes:
>>  From THE GAY BOOK OF LISTS, 11 Alleged Cures for Homosexuality,
>>5.) The love of a good woman.
>
>I dunno.  You really think this would cure me?
>
 
Trust me on this one. It will *definitely* cure what ails ya...
Diane
From: Furr@cup.portal.com (George Dalton Madison)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Re: What to do for NEW YEAR'S EVE in Los Angeles?
Date: Sun,  3 Jan 93 19:18:34 PST
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
  <1992Dec31.061745.26967@ads.com>

Henry Mensch writes:
>Furr@cup.portal.com (George Dalton Madison) wrote:
>->Ron Buckmire asks:
>->>What are other people doing for New Year's eve in LA?
>->Going to San Francisco.  ;-{)##]
>
>thanks for beating me to the punch (so to speak) ... 

Yes, well... Despite the fact that the crowd (and the
*decorations*!) at the Lone Star were *incredible* on New Bear's
Eve [spelling intentional], I thought they were a wee bit
chintzy.... I mean, every other bar I've ever heard of at least
gives away a glass of cheap champagne at midnight, and the
Gauntlet II here in LA has free drinks -- that's *anything*
behind the bar, not just well liquor -- for 15 minutes after
the New Year begins.

Of course, they may have just been running a little late... I was
dragged out of the place by an energetic furball visiting from
N. Carolina right after the ball went up.....  ;-{)##]

 
() The principal mark of genius is not perfection but
() originality, the opening of new frontiers.
()      -- Arthur Koestler
-----
[> George D. Madison | NBCS: B8f+t+w-e+s+k+a!cv | Just say NO to razors! <]
[> It's a BEAR thing -- you wouldn't understand. <|> furr@cup.portal.com <]
Newsgroups: soc.motss
From: justin@hp750.ccs.uky.edu (Justin Sullivan)
Subject: Re: Cramer is our problem too.
    <1992Dec31.034907.11780@spdcc.com> <72676@cup.portal.com> 
    <C06pAB.Fsx@sdf.lonestar.org> <1993Jan3.020105.18684@toolz.uucp>
Organization: University Of Kentucky, Dept. of Math Sciences
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 08:09:22 GMT

todd@toolz.uucp (Todd Merriman) writes:

>Clayton Cramer is an effective fag-baiter.  He has sent me into
>a tizzy more than once!  But, if you remain calm, you'll see how
>pathetic his arguments are:  no substance, and nothing but
>provocation.  It is not debate he engages in, it is arrogant
>put-downs. He thrives on your anger, and your wasted energy 
>makes him feel empowered.   

>The only one he should be debating with is a psycho-therapist.

>Save your wits for someone who really wants to hear your side of
>the story.

Seems to me I've run into this sort of character before.. Right here..
Quite a number of regular posters seem to have a 'side of the story,'
and that's all they want to hear..

Forget about Clayton Cramer. Why is he so effective? I'm sure your
post makes him feel even more 'significant.' Don't encourage him..
Evidently, his effectiveness comes from the fact that he can generate anger;
the anger he feeds on with his baited flames.
From: jns@roissy.umd.edu (J. N. Shaumeyer)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Re: The Boycott, and Colorado Happenings
Date: 31 Dec 92 19:24:45 GMT
Organization: Militant Homosexual Lobby, Gay Lifestyles, Inc.


Bob Donahue (rdonahue@spdcc.com) notes:
 
> 	We need to raise $1,000,000.00-plus to get CO out of the
> fix it is in and meanwhile N times that for each state the decides
> to emulate CO:2 in 1994.
> [....]
> 	Here's the disgusting part --- $50M is less than $2 per
> gay person in the US.

I think the disgusting part is that it is $50 million
extorted by bigots, $50 million that could have been
much better spent elsewhere.

--jns
From: d000dlphi@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu (David Speakman)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Sex in America
Date: 31 Dec 92 02:44:24 GMT
Organization: Ball State University, Muncie, In - Univ. Computing Svc's

The following is a posting of the results of a 1991 study by the National
Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago.
_______________
This is printed without permission. All lawyers please sue David Speakman,
Ball State University, Muncie IN. You will lose, because this does not violate
the "fair use" standard as set by legal precedent. 
            
This information is intended for scholarly use only.
_______________

The NORC looked at the sexual behavior of 1,481 adults (a representative
nationwide sample) in 1991 and found that most adults were either monogamous or
abstained from sex. Perhaps most striking is the finding that in 1991, 22% of
men ages 18 to 29 claimed no sexual partner, compared to 9.7% in 1988. Among
the survey's other findings:

*70% of men and women claimed only one sex partner.
*18% claimed no sex partner.
*5.7% claimed two.
*2.1% claimed three.
*3% of men claimed four or more partners.

IN reference to gender of partners, 91.3% of the male respondents said their
partners were exclusively female, 3% said partners were exclusively male, 0.4%
said they were bisexual, and 5.3% did not answer the question.

Of the female respondents, 95.4% said their partners were exclusively male,
0.2% said their partners were exclusively female, and 4.4% did not answer the
question.

In addition, 6% of the men and 1% of the women indicated that at least one
partner was a casual date or a "pickup."

In an effort to collect accurate data, NORC includes a number of questions
about sexual behavior in its General Social Surveys. 1991 findings:

Sex Partners
The average American has one sex partner over the course of a year, with women
over the age 61 reporting the fewest and men ages 18-29 the most.

Over a lifetime the average American will have 7.14 sex partners since age 18.
The numbers are lowest among the widowed (3.01) and rise according to marital
status: currently married (5.72), never married (8.67), separated (11.75) and
divorced (13.30). the number of partners was highest among the 40-49 age group.

Abstinence
According to NORC 16% of men and 20% of women had no sex in 1991. A 1988 NORC
report found no connection between abstinence and religius beleifs, race, or
region, but found that it is higher among the less educated.

Sexual Orientation
In 1988 NORC found the 98.5% of sexually active adults have been exclusively
heterosexual during the last year. The survey acknowledges that the number is
considerably below the 10% adult homosexuals that the Kinsey report claimed and
argues that a 2% homosexual figure is "in line with the best available figures"
done in other 1988 studies. The survey also found that 80% of americans
"strongly disapprove" of homosexuality, up from 75% a decade earlier.

__________________________________________________________________________

Yucky figures...
David Speakman
Newsgroups: soc.motss
From: anderson@macc.wisc.edu (Jess Anderson)
Subject: Re: "Civil Rights"?  or was that Special Rights?
Organization: Madison Academic Computing Center, UW-Madison
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 92 11:32:48 GMT

In article <72383@cup.portal.com> Jim-Guy@cup.portal.com
(James Lawrence Blastic) writes:

>>In article <BzIDDD.40E@fc.hp.com>, jackies@fc.hp.com
>>(Jackie Sheddy X6958) writes:

>>>       Apparently,  CFV (we all know who THAT  means)

>>    Cretins Fornicating Vigorously?
>>    Can't Find Vulva?
>>    Claptrap For Volk?
>>    Criminals For Viciousness?
>>    Cranium Found Vactated?

>Hmmmm... I think I like the last one the best!
>(still searching dictionary for a definition of Vactated)

Vactate: 1. v.i. No longer giving milk; drained.  2. v.t. broken
or emptied by virtue of having been stepped on by a cow (see
also _bosted_).

>How about Cheap Fundamentalist Vomit?

Very intense, as redundancies go.

<> [Moronic fundamentalist Bible-thumping deleted.]
<> I will answer no flames or mockers. -- David
<> God didn't write the Bible, you pathetic mindless dickbrain;
<> a bunch of tight-assed patriarchal control freaks *just like
<> you* wrote the Bible.
<> -- Frank Swilling (minotaur@cup.portal.com)
-- 
[Jess Anderson <> Madison Academic Computing Center <> University of Wisconsin]
[Internet: anderson@macc.wisc.edu <-best, UUCP:{}!uwvax!macc.wisc.edu!anderson]
[Room 3130 <> 1210 West Dayton Street / Madison WI 53706 <> Phone 608/262-5888]
[---------> Discrimination, Bigotry, and Hate are not Family Values <---------]
Newsgroups: soc.motss
From: nickn@eskimo.com (Nick Nussbaum)
Subject: Re: Abolish Marriage
Organization: >>> Eskimo North (206)-FOR-EVER <<<
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 03:14:44 GMT


Separating the religous ceremony from the legal commitment would
be a great way of dealing with marriage. The mind boggles slightly
at how to deal with existing marriages.
I'm still waiting for the first state with a terrible economy to
realize the tourism bonanza in being the first state to legalize
gay marriage. And once that first state does it, the other states
would be obliged to recognize it.
Newsgroups: soc.motss
From: rhayden@oracle.com (Ronald Hayden)
Subject: Re: Age-ism and the gay community
Organization: Oracle Corporation, Belmont, Ca.
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 19:01:39 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by an unauthenticated user
              at Oracle Corporation.  The opinions expressed are those
              of the user and not necessarily those of Oracle.

In article <1992Dec18.021033.13179@bsu-ucs> 00bbharris@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu writes:

  Everyone talks about racism.... and sexism.... and, here recently, heightism.
  But i want  alk about something of significant importance to me and thousands
  of other of teh gay youth:


				   AGEISM!!!

As with all things like this, I have to ask:  "If your age is that
important to the person, is it a person you care to associate with?"

People who have a real problem with age are usually insecure about
themselves in some way.

I had to deal with this a lot, for a long time.  Only now am I working
somewhere where I'm not the youngest person.  And only in the last few
years have people stopped treating me "differently" based on age.

In the meantime, I found lots of people who weren't ageist, and they
were the ones who were most interesting to be around.
--

  - Ronald Hayden

    ----------------------------------------------------------------
   | Documentation Manager, Oracle Toolkit Group                    |
   | Co-chair of Oracle Lambda, Oracle's Gay/Lesbian/Bisexual group |
   | Writer, magician, and various other things                     |
    ----------------------------------------------------------------
From: mara@panix.com (Mara Chibnik)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Re: Brooklyn Bishop Lays an Egg
Date: 30 Dec 92 14:36:58 GMT
Organization: (getting there)

rjwill6@pbsdts.sdcrc.pacbell.com (Rod Williams) writes:

 >I hope one of our NYC correspondents will have more
 >information about this.
Really?  There's no good in it.

 >The Bay Area Reporter ran an item about a local TV
 >show in New York that had a debate on the pros and cons
 >of the "Children of the Rainbow" curriculum that's
 >being implemented in public schools there -- it teaches
 >kids that gays and lesbians are people to be respected
 >just like any others, and is, therefore, highly
 >contoversial.  One of the participants, (Roman
 >Catholic) Bishop Edward Daily of Brooklyn, made a
 >remark something like how-can-you-teach-that-they're-
 >normal-just-look-at-them.

What he said-- at least, the part that was quoted in my hearing--
was that "homosexuality is a recognized disorder."  It is so blatant
a lie that we sat their stunned the first time we heard it, but as
it was repeated we began to get vocal and did some ranting about it.

 >Is it too much to hope that Daily and his egregious boss,
 >Cardinal O'Connor, would ever deign to speak with and learn
 >from their Episcopalian brother across the Hudson, John
 >Spong, Bishop of Newark, who could startle them with some
 >new-fangled, 20th Century notions about human sexuality...

Sigh.  You really don't expect me to answer that question, do you?
It's almost the end of the year, and I'm trying very hard to be an
optimist about things...

What I really would like to see is some serious outcry from mental
health professionals pointing out that the "disorder" part was
debunked many years ago.

Mara [reporting from NY, where she lives with her favorite mental
health professional]

-- 

  Mara Chibnik
  mara@panix.com                Life is too important to be taken seriously.
From: Furr@cup.portal.com (George Dalton Madison)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Re: segue to segue to segue (Re: Devil CD's)
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 92 20:08:49 PST
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
  <75792@apple.apple.COM> <1992Dec21.132627.25155@spdcc.com>
  <1992Dec21.121323.15706@sei.cmu.edu>

Daniel Bidwa writes:
>The joy of freeform DJing is discovering all the connecting threads in
>seemingly incongruent songs, and wedging them together into some coherent
>amalgamation;

Interesting.  For a while now I've been compiling a list of
songs I think of as "An Exercise In Contrasts."  From songs
with the exact same concept [wanting it to rain so no one
can tell you're crying -- _Crying In The Rain_ by A-Ha and _I
Wish It Would Rain_ by Little Caesar] to different takes
on the same subject [child abuse; _Luka_ by Suzanne Vega and
_Hell Is For Children_ by Pat Benatar] to frankly opposite
views [finding the perfect partner; _Close Enough To Perfect_
by Alabama, and _Good Enough For Now_ by "Weird Al" Yankovic]
to the same song interpreted by different performers [_Touch
Me When We're Dancing_ by The Carpenters and Alabama].

This tape should be interesting if/when I ever actually 
put it together.  ;-{)##]

 
() Considering how dangerous everything is, nothing is
() really very frightening.
()      -- Gertrude Stein
-----
[> George D. Madison | NBCS: B8f+t+w-e+s+k+a!cv | Just say NO to razors! <]
[> It's a BEAR thing -- you wouldn't understand. <|> furr@cup.portal.com <]
Newsgroups: soc.motss,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: lazarus@wixer.cactus.org (Michael Lax)
Subject: Re: Austin, TX joins Colo. Boycott
Organization: Real/Time Communications
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 93 02:09:40 GMT

Ron Buckmire (buckmr@aix02.ecs.rpi.edu) wrote:
: rjchou@oakhill.sps.mot.com (Ri Jen Chou) writes:
: 
: >Austin's ordinance includes sexual orientation in its nondiscrimination
: >list.  21.06 (not 26.01) prohibits certain sexual acts performed by 
: >glb, not for just *being* glb folks.  And next week the Texas Supreme
: >Court begins hearings on ruling it unconstitutional!
: 
: Hmmm, do you happen to know WHEN Austin passed it's ordinance?
: 
: And shame on all of you [and me, too] I just checked the latest version of
: larry@bradley.bradley.edu's non-discrim list on the QRD and "Austin, TX City Of"
: is clearly listed.
: 
: So, I think we can be retty sure Austin has a non-discrimination ordinance.
: Cool beans. Anyone know of other cities in Texas that have similar provisions?
: 

I don't know about other TX cities _having_ non-discrim ordinances - I DO
know that Fort Worth refused to pass it, thanks in part to the efforts of
American Family Assoc.  I've written the Mayor (Kay Granger) and City Council,
but I've never really gotten a response.  The mayor's assistant told me
about how much she is for AIDS funding, etc.   
Newsgroups: soc.motss