HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: zennaro@iesd.auc.dk (Christina Zennaro)
Subject: Re: I don't like homos
Organization: Mathematics and Computer Science, Aalborg University
Date: 13 Nov 92 12:06:35

greco@elec.uq.oz.au (John Greco) wrote:

>Statement of Fact.
>
>   I don't like homos
>
>The End

Piss off then!

Christina Zennaro

--
 ________     
 \      /   Christina Zennaro               |zennaro@iesd.auc.dk
  \    /    Dept of Math and Comp Science   |
   \  /     University of Aalborg           |Frederik Bajersvej 7
    \/      Denmark                         |DK-9220 Aalborg S0

"Call me straight and i'll sue."


Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: mhr@hpuerca.atl.hp.com (Mike Reaser)
Subject: Re: Can Colorado discriminate against straights?
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 15:15:57 GMT
Organization: a stone mountain of Kudzu

In <1992Nov11.215311.20738@tc.cornell.edu> shore@dinah.tc.cornell.edu (Melinda Shore) writes:

>In article <Nov11.195024.69810@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU> doug@crevasse.ATMOS.ColoState.Edu (Doug Cripe) writes:

>The exact same bigoted trash he posted on Monday in 
>article <Nov09.211748.72195@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU>.
>Is there some reason that you feel the need to post it
>twice?
>--
>           Hate is not a family value.  Boycott Colorado

>       Melinda Shore - Cornell Theory Center - shore@tc.cornell.edu


Easy.  He's going for the right wing's "tried-n-true" method of proof
by repeated assertion.

After all, if you hear something enough times ...

Where there's smoke ...

Barf.

--
=======================================================================
 Mike Reaser, Hewlett-Packard N. Amer. Response Center - Atlanta
 Internet:  mhr@hpuerca.atl.hp.com
 NBCS: B4 f w g+ k s-               I barely speak for myself, so
 #include <standard.disclaimer>       don't make me speak for HP
=======================================================================
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: greco@elec.uq.oz.au (John Greco)
Subject: I don't like homos
Organization: Prentice Centre, University of Queensland
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 04:56:09 GMT

Statement of Fact.

   I don't like homos

The End
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: gsmith@clio.uucp (Eugen W. Schmidt)
Subject: Re: Measure 9 in PBS and CBS
Organization: IWR, University of Heidelberg, Germany
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 92 18:36:52 GMT

In article <1992Nov5.184650.5524@midway.uchicago.edu>
nelshou1@cicero.spc.uchicago.edu (Roger Shouse) writes:

>It's not a blanket right, it's the result of political and cultural   
>negotiation. 

A lot of it (this being a good example) is not negotiation, but might
makes right.  There are problems with this, which I will get to.

>Americans are tolerant.  They simply do not accept the proposition that there
>is no moral difference between gay and straight behavior.

You mean some don't.  Less all the time, by the way.

One trouble with your reasoning is as much prudential as moral.  To what
extent can a society afford to go to war on its members?  Consider the
position of a Jew, Gypsy, or gay man in Nazi Germany.  What duty did
such a person owe the state?  Plainly, none at all.  The state has attacked
them, and that means they could claim a right to counterattack by any
means which seems expedient.  If that meant shooting an SS officer or
blowing up the local Gestapo headquarters, so be it.

Now you want to discourage homosexuality, on the specious grounds that
it will make society happier.  These grounds are manifestly specious,
and therefore you are manifestly a bigot, because it is obvious that
it will make homosexuals less happy, and equally obvious that it makes
no real difference in the happiness of bigots (the only ones who could
*logically* be made more happy.)  However, specious or not, you want
to do it.  How far does this extend?  If you want to put homosexuals
in jail, you want to use force.  That means homosexuals are morally
justified in using force back again--for instance, shooting you or
burning down your house.  This is not a good position to but such a
large minority group in.  Society has enough troubles from real
criminals without creating a class of artificial criminals who owe
society nothing.

So this may be too extreme for you.  But what *do*d you want to do?
Whatever it is, you've made enemies (for no reason) who have a
reasonable moral claim to counterattack in kind.  This is no way to
keep the civil in civil society.  The only answer is to butt the hell
out, and mind your own damned business.  Why that should be so hard I
really can't figure.



-- 
   Eugen W. Schmidt/Der Brahms Gang/IWR/Ruprecht-Karls University 
               gsmith@kalliope.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de
From: IO92142@MAINE.MAINE.EDU
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: And I quote...
Date: 10 Nov 92 15:42:11 GMT
Organization: University of Maine System

Elf Sternberg (elf@halcyon.com) writes in response of
a post by Thomas Okken (thomas@duteca.et.tudelft.nl):

"...Saying "I will replace Freud" is balls-to-the-wall chutzpah the
likes of which I've not seen on Usenet in some time."

Needless to say I was on the floor laughing/clapping at this!
Great stuff Elf,

Thanks....


James Gray                    "Family values is a cheap way out,
io92142@maine.maine.edu        we all believe in family morals and
University of Maine            values.  I'm got going to put down what
                               your doing and don't put me down for
                               what I'm trying to do."

                               - Toni Rumsey, Freemont Michigan
From: smothers@nauvax.ucc.nau.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Jesus was gay and John was his lover. (NOT!)
Date: 9 Nov 92 15:55:47 GMT
Organization: Northern Arizona University


     Actually, in response to the previous post, I too have heard this
sentiment, though not written so bluntly from liberal scholars. I have
also heard the reason that Paul was so hard on women was that the
"thorn in his flesh" was homosexuality. I am surprised that the source
of this ludicrous statement this time supposedly comes from a
catholic priest.

     As a dabbler in Christian apologetics, I can tell you that all such
statements fall out of the bounds of reasonableness. Jesus severely pointed
out sin when he saw it. (Sorry to be politically incoreect but within the
Jewish/Christian/Hindu/Islam framework that is how homosexual acts (not
homosexual attraction) is defined. All such statements should be taken with
a grain of salt as they lack basis in historical/social fact.

    I would like to apologize for all the homosexual bashing by someone
on this net who feels its his mission in life to offend you guys/girls using
scripture as justification. Actually most of the christians I know are
offended more at homosexuals wanted extra rights without actually qualifying
as a legitimate minority. (I must stop being politically incorrect, this is
as a legitimate minority. (I must stop being politically incorrect, this is

mark
----
College of Business
Northern Arizona University
Flagstaff, AZ  86001
From: hoyerr@ucs.orst.edu (Richard Hoyer)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: result of 9
Date: 5 Nov 92 18:20:34 GMT
Organization: University Computing Services - OSU

57% no, 43% yes for the entire state, with all precincts reporting.


That's terrible.

But in my county (Benton), it was better:  67% no, 33% yes.  Then again, 21%
here voted for Perot.

-Rich
From: esr@snark.thyrsus.com (Eric S. Raymond)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: extremism
Date: 10 Nov 92 17:38:14 GMT

In <farenebt.721316694@craft.camp.clarkson.edu> Bri Farenell ("Droopy" wrote:
> Silence=death? Many gays feel that if they arent active, it's a threat
> to their lives. Deal with it. Gay activism is no threat to your freedom
> but if they arent active, it's definitely a threat to theirs.

I'm not calling for gays to be silent, nor do I want any more of them to die.
I'm arguing against support for laws which, in the name of "gay rights",
infringe on other peoples' freedoms to make their own choices without
government interference.  I'm saying that if the "gay rights" extremists
continue on their present course, they will earn the hostility of a mainstream
America which would otherwise incline to tolerance.

Consider the near-passage of Measure 9 in Oregon.  Learn from it.  If the
Measure 9 framers had stuck to the part forbidding state government to take
legal notice of homosexuals as a group, rather than overreaching into a
requirement for anti-gay propagandizing, it probably would have passed.

Freedom is indivisible.  To get it, you have to give it.
-- 
					Eric S. Raymond <esr@snark.thyrsus.com>
From: nmehl@rm105serve.sas.upenn.edu (Nathan J. Mehl)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: extremism
Date: 7 Nov 92 05:46:08 GMT
Reply-To: nmehl@rm105serve.sas.upenn.edu
Organization: Nihilists for a Better Tomorrow

In article <1jNYlS#3FvHQ81HrG5G9wr6pm9FlqDL=esr@snark.thyrsus.com> esr@snark.thyrsus.com (Eric S. Raymond) writes:
>
>The gay rights extremists don't seem to want to stop there, though.  First,
>they seem to want to secure legal privileges for gays that I don't have ---
>like the "right" to be employed by people who dislike my sexual preference.

As the old canard goes, the law in its wisdom prohibits the rich and poor
alike from sleeping under bridges...

Moreover, if you read the text of most anti-discrimination laws that have
been proposed or passed, you will find that they do not base themselves
"...with regard to homo- or bisexuality."  Rather, they are worded to
eliminate discrimination "...on the basis of sexual preference." 
Therefore, even though it is admittedly unlikely that you will be fired
due to your sexual preference, the right to be protected from that
is in fact extended to you as well.

>Second, they want to force me to subsidize gay behavior by paying the medical
>expenses of AIDS victims through taxes extorted from me.

Strange.  I had always thought that hospitals were into providing medical
care, not running dating services. :)

More pointedly though, since when does how you got a disease bear any
relation to your right to be treated for it?  People who eat sushi
often develop intestinal parasites - does the fact that they eat
sushi anyways bar them from getting treated when they do contract
tapeworm?  People who leave their homes during the winter will often
contract serious influenza - should we leave them all to die, since
they could have just stayed home?  Think a little about this.  Subsidized
health care is either for everyone or no one.

>That isn't right.  You can live the way you want, but pay your own freight.

Do you eat red meat?  Do you exercise less than 30 minutes a day?  Do
you live or work around smokers?  Do you smoke yourself?  Do you live
in a city with a lot of automobiles?

Then don't come crying to me when you have a heart attack.

>Thus, gay *people* are fine by me and I count many of them as friends.  But,
>increasingly, I have to  consider gay *activism* a threat to my freedom.

>(You watch.  Someone will call me a homophobe for saying that.)

A homophobe?  Not yet.  A sloppy thinker?  You betchyerass.

------------Nathan J. Mehl---------------(nmehl@pennsas.upenn.edu)------
It's the little touches that make a future solid enough to be destroyed.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: mudge@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (MUDGE BRIAN WAYNE)
Subject: Re: Can Colorado discriminate against straights?
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 04:21:17 GMT

In article <1992Nov10.205508.19199@tc.cornell.edu> shore@dinah.tc.cornell.edu (Melinda Shore) writes:
>In article <1992Nov10.132745.44592@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> rminor@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu writes:
>>A question of clarification:  Does the Colorado vote mean that I can
>>discriminate against people who are straight?  
>
>No.  The amendment specifies, and I quote, "NO PROTECTED
>STATUS BASED ON HOMOSEXUAL, LESBIAN OR BISEXUAL ORIENTATION."

   WRONG!  Except in places that have specifically enacted legislation 
prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, it is legal,
in the state of colorado, to fire an employee on the basis of sexual 
orientation, straight or gay.  For that matter, any reason not specifically
prohibited by federal law, is perfectly good enough to fire someone in
Colorado.
  Colorado companies do not need to give a reason for firing someone.
  In the event that an employee feels they have been discriminated against,
the burden of proof is on them. (current law)
  How do I know?  I live here, I called the dept. of labor.

                            Bri...



Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,soc.motss
From: rdonahue@spdcc.com (Bob Donahue)
Subject: Re: CO-2 named appropriately?
Keywords: suffocation colorado amendment
Organization: insert anything here
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 19:48:55 GMT

mhr@hpuerca.atl.hp.com (Mike Reaser) writes:
>Is it just the former Chemistry major in me, or is there something
>spooky about the favorite abbreviation people are using for the 
>homophobic amendment in Coloradon't?

>CO-2 ... as in "Carbon Dioxide".

>Couldn't we fight this by simply pointing out that CO-2 suffocates
>_everyone_?

	Not vegetables.... you know like the cerebra of the people
who voted for it.

BBC/Galileo-bear

BTW I love CO2.

Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: frankm@microsoft.com (Frank R.A.J. Maloney)
Subject: Re: OR-9
Date: 06 Nov 92 04:26:16 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Windows/DOS Users Ed Group
Distribution: usa

In article <eagle.720884150@garfield.catt.ncsu.edu> eagle@garfield.catt.ncsu.edu (Daniel L'Hommedieu) writes:
>Where can I get the text to this OR-9 measure?
>

Daniel, you might try looking in the bottom of the crapper.
That's where it belongs.

-- 
Frank Richard Aloysius Jude Maloney
	"Well, I'm a little muddled." -- Glinda
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,soc.motss,misc.legal
From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: Re: CO-2 Ammendment PASSES 8-(
Followup-To: alt.politics.homosexuality,soc.motss 
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Keywords: Could somebody give us an answer, please? 
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Distribution: alt
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 92 18:34:33 GMT

In article <1992Nov06.205519.1915@microsoft.com> philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
>In article <1992Nov4.162958.4674@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> mudge@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (MUDGE BRIAN WAYNE) writes:
>>  Oh yea, as an ammendment to the constitution of the state of KKKolorado, 
>>ammendment 2 cannot be declared unconstitutional.  Only the Supreme Court
>>of the US. can do that, and that is considered VERY unlikely.
>
>     Are you sure about that?  I thought that any federal court could
>overturn it, not just the Supreme Court.

My understanding is:

1)  The Colorado Supreme Court can rule it unconsitutional.

2)  Any Federal Court with Colorado in its jurisdiction can rule it 
    unconstituional

3)  The  Supreme Court can rule it unconstutional.

Maybe one of the folks in misc.legal (Where this is crossposted to) can
enlighten us?

[Note:  Followups set back to a.p.h and s.m]

[Note:  If you get the group, subscribe to co.politics.amend2.info]


Rumor-Of-The-Day:  CFV is denying that somebody from their offices called
the Colorado Springs and Denver school boards, asking for lists of gay
and *SINGLE* [emphasis mine] teachers...

>
>				-Phil
>
>-- 
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Phil Lafornara         				1 Microsoft Way         
>philipla@microsoft.com				Redmond, WA 98052-6399 
>Note:  Microsoft doesn't even _know_ that these are my opinions. So there.


--
=kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu | B(0-4) c- d- e++ f- g++ k(+) m r(-) s++(+) t | TSAKC=
=My thoughts, my posts, my ideas, my responsibility, my beer, my pizza.  OK???=
=You know, Colorado has a lot more to fear from a RadiKalFeministLesbianBitch =
=like me than I have to fear from either Colorado or "Them".  Carpe Diem! FWA!=
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: gsmith@lauren.uucp (Eugen W. Schmidt)
Subject: Re: Measure 9 in PBS and CBS
Organization: IWR, University of Heidelberg, Germany
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 92 17:26:47 GMT

In article <1992Nov6.201903.17531@midway.uchicago.edu> nelshou1@cicero.spc.uchicago.edu (Roger Shouse) writes:

>No, simply admit the point that not all sexual acts between consenting
>adults are sanctioned.  A brother and sister or a pair of first cousins
>could not marry in this country, correct?  Is this unconscienable 
>discrimination?

As far as the legality of marriage goes, brother and sister is
illegal, cousins it depends.  And you've moved from laws prohibiting
sex to those prohibiting marriage.  And you've failed to notice that
some of the reasons for the laws prohibiting marriage don't have any
relevance to the glb case.  So, this doesn't show much.

>But again, we do make laws governing what is and is not acceptable.

What you keep veering away from is the question of the rationality of
laws.  It isn't a good idea to pass oppressive legislation just for
the fun of it, as you appear to think.

>By the way, if you're going to talk about "the human species", it's
>interesting to note that it's preservation is not entirely compatable
>with homosexuality, no?

Complete nonsense.  Humans are typically mammalian in having
homosexual behavior, and in surviving quite well.  At the moment, a
little more homosexuality would probably be good for the survival of
the species.

>>If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, I say it is a duck.
>>You don't want to be called a bigot because you don't like the
>>implications of the word, but you don't dislike them enough to leave
>>off being a bigot.

>And I would suggest that you don't like being called "abnormal" because
>you don't like the implications of that word.  Be clear about this,
>you can't continue to engage in name calling without it being returned.

You started it.  Then you whinged about it.  Boo hoo.

As for abnormal, it isn't clear it is a correct usage.  Is
lefthandedness "abnormal"?  According to the usual way the word is
used, no.






-- 
     Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/IWR/Ruprecht-Karls University 
               gsmith@kalliope.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de
From: steve.connelly@synapse.org (Steve Connelly) 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Anti-Gay Reggae song on N
Date: 6 Nov 92 04:29:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: SYNAPSE BBS - GATINEAU, QUEBEC - 819-561-4321
Reply-To: steve.connelly@synapse.org (Steve Connelly) 

RB>Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,soc.motss
RB>From: buckmr@rpi.edu (Ron Buckmire)
RB>Message-ID: <9210281943.AA11938@client.its.rpi.edu>
RB>Subject: Anti-Gay Reggae song on NEW YORK CITY radio station
RB>Date: Wed, 28 Oct 92 14:43:34 EST


RB> NEW YORK (UPI) -- A popular reggae song played by two major city radio
RB>stations denounces gays and urges, ``Shoot them now, let us shoot them,''
RB>the New York Post reported Saturday.
RB> The single ``Boom Bye Bye'' by 19-year-old Buju Banton is being
.....RB> ``Faggots have to run or get a bullet in the head,'' 

....RB> VP Record executive David Sanguinetti disclaimed responsibility for
RB>the record's contents, saying: ``We just manufacture and distribute it
RB>here.''

Almost an echo of the Nazi soldier explaining that he/she was just
following orders isn't it?
---
 . DeLuxe. 1.21 #777sa . I tried the rest but bought the worst!!!!
From: rminor@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Can Colorado discriminate against straights?
Date: 10 Nov 92 13:27:45 CST
Organization: University of Kansas Academic Computing Services

A question of clarification:  Does the Colorado vote mean that I can
discriminate against people who are straight?  Could I as governor
announce that I will not hire any self-proclaimed or suspected
heterosexuals?  In other words, I can discriminate on the basis of
sexual orientation if I want and exclude heterosexuals since they are
no longer protected either?

It looks to me like protection from discrimination does not give
special rights to gay and lesbian people, but that it protects
everyone from such discrimination on the basis of their sexual
orientation.

Just a thought!
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: "ron ingelevics" <ron.ingelevics@canrem.com>
Subject: let's fight back
Reply-To: "ron ingelevics" <ron.ingelevics@canrem.com>
Organization: Canada Remote Systems
Distribution: alt
Date: 9 Nov 92 13:12:09 EST

(I found this message on a local gay board)
:
Well, my friends, have I got an idea for you...
:

There is an 800 number for requesting the "Colorado Tourism Board

Vacation Packet"  OOPS... You got the idea before I could even
type in the number!!!!

:

We all KNOW how to network, don't we ? Just put on every board you
use, that each reader should call 1-800-433-2656 and instead of
leaving name & address to receive a free vacation packet, leave a
message that you WON'T be coming to Colorado for your skiing
vacation.  Please DO mention that you know the Tourism board WAS
against #2 (for exactly this reason) but that you can't, won't,
shouldn't, couldn't possibly spend any time in Colorado. LET'S
RING THE PHONES OFF THE WALL !!!
:

For those of you who would like to spend a few pennies on long
distance...
:
Colorado Ski Country USA - (303) 837-0793  Business office 1560

Broadway, Denver CO 80202

:

The Greater Denver Chamber of Commerce - (303) 534-8500 Mr.
Richard  Fleming, Executive Director, 1445 Market, Denver, CO
80202 (Again, mention that you know Chamber was against # 2 but
that doesn't help you from cancelling your trip.)

:

Please ECHO this and let's really get this going ! ! !
:

Have your straight friends put this on their networks TOO.
--
Canada Remote Systems  - Toronto, Ontario
World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044
From: nmehl@rm105serve.sas.upenn.edu (Nathan J. Mehl)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Fundamentalist Nightmare
Date: 5 Nov 92 08:31:42 GMT
Reply-To: nmehl@rm105serve.sas.upenn.edu
Organization: Nihilists for a Better Tomorrow

In article <1992Nov4.170122.19258@athena.mit.edu> grisha@athena.mit.edu (Grigory Golberg) writes:
>   
>I am sorry, but I mentioned that what I
>wrote is approximately what the Bible says. Now, I'd like to point out 
>that the very original Hebrew text has the same meaning.


Ah, how cute.  So you speak Hebrew?  Or more to the point, you speak
ancient, modern and Aramaic hebrew?  Care to start quoting for us?

Here, I'll even hand you the rope that you're about to hang yourself
with: What is the Aramaic word that "abomination" denotes in the
KJV text, and what exactly does it signify?

You know, Harvard's religon department is only a 10 minute bus
ride from you.  It wouldn't hurt at all...

------------Nathan J. Mehl---------------(nmehl@pennsas.upenn.edu)------
It's the little touches that make a future solid enough to be destroyed.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Alan.Moorman@f31.n282.z1.tdkt.kksys.com (Alan Moorman)
Sender: FredGate@tdkt.kksys.com