HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: citer@jetson.uh.edu (Ray (citer@jetson.uh.edu))
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: A question about gays in military
Date: 27 Jan 1993 07:32 CST
Organization: University of Houston
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: rosie.uh.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

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.

Sounds just like the solution we had to the "problem" of African-Americans
in the military just a few decades back.

Ray (citer@jetson.uh.edu)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: aap@wam.umd.edu (Alberto Adolfo Pinkas)
Subject: Re: God is intolerant of sin!
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 19:33:56 GMT

In article <107986@bu.edu> kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) writes:
>
>Something is sexually immoral if not all parties involved do or can
>give informed consent. Thus bestiality, child molestation, necrophilia,
>and rape are all sexually immoral.
>
>Homosexuality between consenting adults does NOT fall into this category.

So, if I make a hole in my mattress and then stick my penis there
and then pump up and down, and then I have an orgasm: That is 
sexually inmoral because the mattress did not consent?
A dead body is like a mattress.



AAP
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: aap@wam.umd.edu (Alberto Adolfo Pinkas)
Subject: Re: So Forgach Supports Shutting Down Catholic masses
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 18:45:56 GMT

In article <108061@bu.edu> kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) writes:
>In article <1993Jan22.214302.24837@wam.umd.edu>
>aap@wam.umd.edu (Alberto Adolfo Pinkas) writes:
>
>>If women can become priests, bishops, archbishop, cardinals or popes,
>>they will not be having the same opportunities as men, but they
>>will be taken as men.
>
>Ridiculous! What about the priesthood is INHERENTLY male?

Who cares?
That is the way the church made it and that is the way it is.
Why do you think that you can apply logical reasoning to religion and
to those institutions that come from it?


>>There is a small confusion between being treated equally and erasing
>>the natural differences between them.
>
>The differences are biological, not spiritual.

assuming people have spirits (or souls).


>
>>If a man can carry a baby to term, he is a woman and not a man.
>
>But if a women chooses to have no children, is she less of a woman?

Come on, Kane, you know that you are saying something that is
ridiculous. We are talking about who can have a baby, not about who 
does not want to have a baby.

>
>>So, the church, as an institution, has posts which are for men and 
>>posts which are for women. 
>
>What's the reason, though? Why spiritual segregation for biological
>reasons?

Segregation is not biological but cultural.


>
>Brian
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>kane@{buast7,astro}.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) Astronomy Dept, Boston University,
>Boston, MA 02215. True personal salvation is achieved by absolute faith in
>ones true self.
>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

AAP
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,soc.motss
From: rjwill6@PacBell.COM (Rod Williams)
Subject: Re: Conservative Republican Sen. D'Amato supports gays in military
Organization: Pacific * Bell, San Ramon, California
Distribution: alt
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 00:45:59 GMT

> buckmr@vccnw05.its.rpi.edu (Ron Buckmire) writes:
>>gordon@lugh.think.com (gordon linoff) writes:
>
>>Dow Jones News Service reported that not all Republican are
>>supporting the ban.  In fact, Sen. D'Amato announced on the
>>Senate floor that he supports Clinton's efforts to lift the
>>ban.
>Yeah, I saw Al on TV. Al wants to be Governor of New York State.
>Al will SAY ANYTHING to be elected.
>
>>From my bit of familiary with NY politics, D'Amato is quite
>>conservative and not a typical ally of gay people.  He won
>>by a very thin margin again Bob Avrams, a long-time ally of
>>the gay community (but new-found enemy of the
>>Italian-American community in New York).
>
>Right before the election [DAYS] Al D'Amato finally said that he support
>equal rights for gays. He has been an outspoken homophobe previously. He was 
>named Pro-Life Senator of the Year a few years ago.
>
>He's a thieving sleaze. [his brother was indicted 17 times for selling access
>to the Senator]

I neverthless summoned up the good manners to call his
office (202/224-6542) to commend him for his support of
the President's plan to lift the ban.
-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
rod williams -=- pacific bell -=- san ramon, ca -=- rjwill6@pacbell.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: God is intolerant of sin!
Date: 23 Jan 93 16:35:27 GMT
Organization: Astronomy Department, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA

In article <1jpk1iINNfhh@hp-col.col.hp.com>
smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes:

>kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) writes:

>> With regard to your recent question to Tim Pierce, "What is sexual
>> immorality?", this is quite easy to answer:
>> 
>> Something is sexually immoral if not all parties involved do or can
>> give informed consent. Thus bestiality, child molestation, necrophilia,
>> and rape are all sexually immoral.
>> 
>> Homosexuality between consenting adults does NOT fall into this category.

>And from a legal/legislative point of view, I'm with you 100% here.  
>Homosexuality should not be illegal, while the other things should be. 
>My question to Tim Pierce was asked from a religious-point--of-view; 
>what in his view is sexual immorality from that vantage. 

The problem with asking about religious points of view is that you
can't effectively argue, since presumably these view of morality are
not based upon reason but upon faith.

Brian
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
kane@{buast7,astro}.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) Astronomy Dept, Boston University,
Boston, MA 02215. True personal salvation is achieved by absolute faith in
ones true self.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Pick and Choose? (was  Re: God is intolerant of sin!)
Date: 22 Jan 93 18:14:28 GMT
Organization: Astronomy Department, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA

In article <1jp9edINNaak@hp-col.col.hp.com>
smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes:

>So you do understand why Christians do not follow the Mosaic Law, and 
>therefore why arguments like "why don't you discriminate against people 
>wearing polyester" are meaningless to a Christian?  

It seems to me that if one reads Paul's epistles carefully, a lot of Mosaic
law has miraculously been carried over, this in spite of the fact that
large amounts of it, INCLUDING especially homosexual acts, were never addressed
by Christ.

Not only that, but Paul prefaced his opinions with the disclaimer that they
were NOT the word of God, but his own under inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

Paul seems to have had a hard time shaking Judaism, and this is reflected in
the NT through not only his condemnation of homosexual acts, but his
proscription of female speech in church, their wearing of head cover, and
the ignominious "man is the glory of woman" bit.

Strange, although this is clearly NT and has not been superseded, most
Christians no longer forbid women to speak in church, nor insist on head
covering, nor any of the other "moral" laws Paul spoke of.

Perhaps is it the realization that abandoning outdated cultural norms is
NOT AT ALL the same thing as abandoning Christianity.

The basic principles remain the same, and I having an awfully hard time
finding where Christ condemns homosexual acts as a basic principle of
Christianity.

Brian
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
kane@{buast7,astro}.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) Astronomy Dept, Boston University,
Boston, MA 02215. True personal salvation is achieved by absolute faith in
ones true self.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce)
Subject: Re: A question about gays in military
Organization: Elitist Usenet Administrators, Stuff and Nonsense Division
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 05:10:07 GMT

In article <1k4vcaINNgju@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu> zeng@mth.msu.edu (Zhonggang Zeng) writes:

>I'm ready to be enlighted if somebody give good reason that I'm wrong.

cf. "Glory," American film, 1990 (?)

-- 
____ Tim Pierce                / 
\  / twpierce@unix.amherst.edu /               Rocks say goodbye.
 \/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) /
From: barnesm@vavau.Corp.Sun.COM (Mark Barnes - SMCC/CTE)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: God is intolerant of sin!
Date: 22 Jan 1993 22:00:00 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Distribution: world
Reply-To: barnesm@vavau.Corp.Sun.COM
NNTP-Posting-Host: vavau.corp.sun.com

In article 20334@hobbes.kzoo.edu, k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu (Jamie R. McCarthy) writes:
>>>>"Everybody knows it" is not an acceptable answer.
>>>
>>>But it seems that "It is the right thing to do" is an acceptable one.
>>
>>And how do you know that "it is the right thing to do"?
>>
>>Ah, i see.  "Everybody knows it".
>
>Er...what exactly are we talking about here?

Funny you should ask. 

It seems those silly humans are trying to define non-existant things like
"right", "wrong", and "morality" again.  And some them are using their
definitions, or those of others which have been written into some book,
to justify their own likes, dislikes, prejudices, and preferences again.

None of them seems to notice they're in section of the maze without the
cheese.  In fact, they're in the maze without the cheese.  It'd be a whole
lot more amusing if it hadn't already been observed a zillion times before.
Poor, poor humans.  Will they ever wake up?

(*yawn*)

--------------------------------+---------------------------------------
Mark Barnes, System Engineer    |  <insert standard disclaimers here>
SUN Microsystems Computer Corp. |
Corporate Technical Escalations |  I speak for myself, an individual,
Menlo Park, CA, USA             |  not for the company for which I work.
barnesm@vavau.Corp.Sun.COM      |
--------------------------------+---------------------------------------

Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: StarOwl@uiuc.edu (Michael D. Adams)
Subject: Re: Special Rights for Heterosexuals (Re: Text of the CO Gay Discrimination Provisions Ammendment)
Reply-To: StarOwl@uiuc.edu
Organization: Actuarial Science Program at UIUC
X-Political-Statement: Bigotry is not a family value -- boycott Colorado, think twice about Oregon, watch out for Ohio and Idaho
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 12:05:06 GMT

john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore) writes:
>awerling@nmsu.edu (WERLING) writes:

>]As a gay person, I don't feel safe walking the streets.  I have no
>]defense if I get fired for my sexual orientation.  Heterosexuals do.

>As a white person, I don't feel safe walking many of the streets
>of Phoenix.

>What defense do I have if I am fired for my sexual orientation that you
>do not have???

In Colorado at least, and soon possibly Oregon, Idaho, and Ohio, you 
could sue your former employer for discrimination on the basis of your
heterosexuality, and try to get recompensated for lost wages and
emotional trauma.

In Colorado, homosexuals and bisexuals no longer have that "right"/privelege.


--
Michael D. Adams	      | Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not
StarOwl@uiuc.edu	      | for themselves.  -- Abraham Lincoln
an692@anon.penet.fi	      | We cannot defend freedom abroad by deserting
NBCS: B1f+t-w+g+k++s+me+h-qv  | it at home.  -- Edward R. Murrow		
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Subject: Re: Special Rights for Heterosexuals (Re: Text of the CO Gay Discrimination Provisions Ammendment)
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 19:48:30 GMT

fogarty@sir-c.jpl.nasa.gov (Tim Fogarty) writes:


>In article <john.727477570@misty>, john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore) writes:

]Someone else wrote, and many people jumped on,
]|>]-Furthermore, in the case of gays, you already have a higher average earning
]|>]-than het's in the US. You are not in a good position to claim economic
]|>]-victimhood.

]If you are doing a survey of annual income of gays, the only people in your
]survey are those who are openly gay.  It is much more likely for a well
]educated and/or well established gay or lesbian to be able to be openly gay.
]Not too many gay labor workers are going to be openly gay.

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


]|>
]|>You have yet to give me ONE reason why I should consider gays a
]|>specially protected minority, rather than just one more arbitrary way
]|>of categorizing people and dividing people from each other.

]Why is it that when person A receives all the benifits of a society, and
]person B is denied some of those same benifits, and person B wants those 
]benifits, person A claims that person B is wanting to be a "specially
]protected minority" ?
I didn't say that some discrimination that now exists shouldn't be ended
(like the prohibition on some privileges of marriage). Now, what are
YOU talking about? As far as I am concerned, when the law mentions
sexual preference at all, it is wrong (with a couple of exceptions:
custody of children, and military service).

]The only thing that gays and lesbians want, which is the same thing that 
]blacks want, which is the same thing that women want, which is the same
]thing that non-Christians want:  To be judged by who we are, not by what
]we are.

Why do you want to be judged at all? Furthermore, the government can't
affect how you are "judged." It can only coerce other people's behavior.
-- 
John Moore NJ7E, 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253  (602-951-9326)
john@anasazi.com ncar!noao!asuvax!anasaz!john anasaz!john@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
 - - Support ALL of the bill of rights, INCLUDING the 2nd amendment! - -
 - - It is not enough to be right. One must also be effective! - -
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce)
Subject: Re: Read this if you are straight!
Organization: Elitist Usenet Administrators, Stuff and Nonsense Division
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1993 02:49:55 GMT

In article <1k7mv0INN803@titan.ucs.umass.edu> quilty@titan.ucs.umass.edu (Lulu of the lotus-eaters) writes:

>Employer have *complete* legal discretion to fire anyone they consider
>fat or ugly, for *NO* other reason besides being fat and ugly.

Whose employer?  Yours?  An awful lot have "appearance" included in
their statements of non-discrimination.

In fact, I think even yours might.

-- 
____ Tim Pierce                / 
\  / twpierce@unix.amherst.edu /               Rocks say goodbye.
 \/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) /
From: kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Pick and Choose? (was  Re: God is intolerant of sin!)
Date: 22 Jan 93 17:52:35 GMT
	    <1993Jan21.220123.1605@cbnewsj.cb.att.com>
	    <1993Jan21.224711.4068@wam.umd.edu>
Organization: Astronomy Department, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA

In article <1993Jan21.224711.4068@wam.umd.edu>
aap@wam.umd.edu (Alberto Adolfo Pinkas) writes:

>In article <1993Jan21.220123.1605@cbnewsj.cb.att.com>
ecl@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (Evelyn C. Leeper) writes:

>>I think it's perfectly okay for someone to quote Leviticus about
>>homosexuality, as long as s/he follows it himself/herself.  So has s/he
>>given up: [list of other proscriptions]

>My dear Evelyn: I guess that you are confussed: [...]
>At least they follow one rule, which is better than following none.

Alberto, you ignoramus---following a rule with blind faith is not better
than questioning its validity.

We abandon part of our humanity if we accept things without question.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.sex,talk.religion.misc
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Protecting Hets from Hets
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 03:53:00 GMT

rlc1028@zeus.tamu.edu writes:
] In article <1993Jan20.055945.19584@wetware.com>, drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes...
] | 
] |What if the Above Stereotypical behavior is
] |done by a celibate het male who is not into sexism?
] | 
] |You local GayBasherHomophobe concludes that
] |Clearly there is a Faggot in our Midsts and
] |decides to do a Little Ethnic Cleansing.....
] 
] 	So then the heterosexual would need the protection
] of some sort of sexual orientation clause at work?

I presume here that you are suggesting
it would not be MORAL to discharge
a hetro for Not being het Enough?

If So, YES!

I think that this is a part of the discussion
about 'gay rights' that seems to get lost.

The Guy who taught me why the 'Rambo Knife'
was Stoopid, learned the hard way by leaving
his in a Guy outside of Beirut in an operation
that did not make the news.

In Some folks book, Sam would NOT be considered
'Macho' enough... But at least he has the 
protection of being able to wear his three 
rows of Ribbons.

Some other hets are not that lucky.


ciao
drieux


-- 
MajorModernDayProblems: 

"If you will not talk with Yourself, 
Why should anyone else?"
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Subject: Re: Special Rights for Heterosexuals (Re: Text of the CO Gay Discrimination Provisions Ammendment)
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 17:33:01 GMT

twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce) writes:

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

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

]Ever heard of people being outed, John?

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

]Right.  When the law mentions sexual preference, it's wrong unless
]it's a context which limits the rights of queers.
Only in the specific cases I gave.
-- 
John Moore NJ7E, 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253  (602-951-9326)
john@anasazi.com ncar!noao!asuvax!anasaz!john anasaz!john@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
 - - Support ALL of the bill of rights, INCLUDING the 2nd amendment! - -
 - - It is not enough to be right. One must also be effective! - -
Xref: sparky alt.politics.homosexuality:10118 talk.religion.misc:27313
From: cj@eno.esd.sgi.com.esd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Children of the Rainbow books
Date: 22 Jan 93 23:14:22 GMT
Reply-To: cj@sgi.com
Organization: SGI TechPubs


In article <1jp6inINN8h6@hp-col.col.hp.com>, smithw@col.hp.com writes:
|pmm7@ellis.uchicago.edu (peggy boucher murphy (you had to ask?)) writes:
||please tell me what "gay values" are?  my values are 
||colored by my sexuality (i have a remarkable affinity 
||for acceptance, tolerance, non-judgemental attitudes, 
||open minds, etc),
|That explains this part of your response to kebarnes:
|>this is quite a presumption, actually.  do you have anything
|>other than your feeble mind-power to base it on (hint: it's
|>incorrect).
|*Remarkably* accepting, tolerant, and non-judgemenal. 

I don't know about Peggy, but my personal fund of tolerance runs
out when I confront people who aren't accepting, tolerant, and
non-judgmental.  Also when I confront bigoted idiotic behavior,
rather like the behavior you're displaying.

---
cj@eno.esd.sgi.com       C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
"The mind of a bigot is like the pupil of the eye.  The more light you 
shine on it, the more it will contract." -- Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality
From: teddybur@netcom.com (John Sanger)
Subject: Re: Harrassing Email
Organization: Hetaris Computer Consulting
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 01:43:01 GMT

In article <1jl6fdINN94i@titan.ucs.umass.edu> quilty@titan.ucs.umass.edu (Lulu of the lotus-eaters) writes:
>Hi netters....
>
>Some of you may remember me from a recent post to this group
>critiqueing the methodological assumptions of Levay and similar
>researchers of the "biological" nature of homosexuality.  After
>posting that I received a series of letters from a reader of this
>group, who disagreed in a manner that was pretty flamey, but which I
>initially assumed to be in good faith.  Following that, I received an
>increasingly belligerent series of emails from this person; until I
>eventually asked him to desist in such harrassment (which he has not
>done).  I mention this for two reasons:  1) to warn any concerned
>against bothering with writing or responding to this person; 2) to ask
>if any of you have had similar experiences with email, and how you
>dealt with it (notification of sysops, etc.).  The belligerent, btw,
>is: 
>	John Sanger <teddybur@netcom.com>
>
>Luvin' on y'all....
>-- 

This person seems to think that someone who consistently points out the
ignorance of their statements is perpetrating harassment.  I have an email
from this individual admitting their ignorance on the subject of Simon
LeVay's research.  I do not think getting someone to admit what was so
obvious to me is harrassment, especially since the text of my replies to
them were short and usually just stated that they were showing their
ignorance of Simon LeVay's work.  Their response was to threaten me.  They
then send an interesting response which was an email from a friend  who
held the opinion that Simon LeVay and all others who do such research are
full of hot air and are not persuing a legitimate course of investigation.
This fwd'd email did not state anything but the personal opinion of the
person who wrote the message.  If this 'lulu' person is so shallow a
person as to base personal opinion on the personal opinion of another
without doing any research into the subject and reading the reports that
are available on the subject, then they deserve to be called ignorant and
to have it published so that everyone can read it.
'lulu' has admitted that even though they hold an account at an '.edu' site
that they do not know the first thing about how to use the Internet for
reseach.  If I am not mistaken the purpose of the NSFNET portion of the
Internet is to do research and that is the reason that US tax dollars are 
provided to fund it.  Perhaps 'lulu' should at least try to comply with the
rules of the NSFNET since their account accesses via a NSFNET connection.


Ciao!
	John S. :^)
	teddybur@netcom.com
__

Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush