HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: greg_bradt@msmgate.mrg.uswest.com (Greg Bradt)
Subject: Re: SECULARISM
XXXDate: Tue, 5 Jan 93 18:12:25 GMT
XUserAgent: Nuntius v1.1.1d16
XXXMessageID: <A76F80091C054519@oma_train_4.mrg.uswest.com>
Organization: US West Marketing Resources
NntpPostingHost: oma_train_4.mrg.uswest.com
Date: 06 Jan 93 00:08:46 GMT

In article <C0CMps.MMD@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> JIM GRAHAM,
graham@venus.iucf.indiana.edu writes:
>Indeed, just as the gay/lesbian population argues that their lifestyles
>should be recognized as an "alternative lifestyle", how is it any
>different if certain sects of Christians (to take one example) claim
>that they have a right to practice their religion (ie _way of life_)
>outside of the home?
>
>What is the difference between the two "alternative lifestyles" in
>terms of daily life?

Has anybody ever had a problem with your practicing your religion in
public?  I can't imagine so, unless in doing so you felt the need to
interfere in their lives in some way.  Nobody but a few pathetic fanatics
(yes, they exist on sides of the issue) cares what you do as long as you
don't make yourself a nuisance doing it.  And, to that extent, the law
protects your =right= to do it.

Of course, some Christians are not satisfied with that.  They feel that
to "practice their religion" they must prosletize.  We need laws to
protect us from these people when they become obnoxious in doing so.

Even worse, some of them feel that they must do whatever they can to
actively prevent people from doing things that are proscribed by their
religion, like extramarital sex or having abortions.  These people =must=
be kept in check if we are to remain a free society.

In answer to your question, the "lifestyle" of the latter two groups
differ from that of the gays/lesbians in that they interfere in peoples
lives, and do so in a way that is rude and unacceptable.  Other, more
rational, Christians are free to live their "lifestyle" without
interference, as should the gays.

Greg Bradt aka ()The Lensman()

greg_bradt@msmgate.mrg.uswest.com | Freedom means sometimes
Genie: G.BRADT                    | having to put up with
Compuserve: 70206,172             | things that really
BBS: (303)290 9243                | piss you off.
From: birge@guerciotti.EBay.Sun.COM (John Birge)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Sexuality
Date: 11 Jan 1993 22:09:52 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Distribution: world
Reply-To: birge@guerciotti.EBay.Sun.COM
NNTP-Posting-Host: guerciotti.ebay.sun.com
From: Harry Foster <foster@convex.COM>
Subject: Re: Sexuality
Originator: foster@magnum.convex.com
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 15:36:02 GMT
Distribution: usa
Reply-To: foster@convex.COM (Harry Foster)
Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., Richardson, Tx., USA
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
>
>...  I do not, for example, think that it is ever correct to 
>teach children about having sex with farm animals (which has been 
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>done in some Planned Parenthood books ...

Is this some kinda new Planned Parenthood population control technique ?

Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.sex,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: greg_bradt@msmgate.mrg.uswest.com (Greg Bradt aka The Lensman)
Subject: Re: Colorado Amendment2 Query
XXXDate: Mon, 4 Jan 93 20:24:00 GMT
XUserAgent: Nuntius v1.1.1d16
XXXMessageID: <A76DEAF0B90B0614@greg_bradt.mrg.uswest.com>
Organization: US West Marketing Resources
NntpPostingHost: greg_bradt.mrg.uswest.com
Date: 04 Jan 93 20:25:05 GMT

In article <1993Jan01.221028.4886@wattres.SJ.CA.US> Steve King,
sking@wattres.SJ.CA.US writes:
>     After a conversation with a friend about Colorado Amendment 2, I
>am confused.  After listening to the liberal major media about the
>issue, I get the impression that Amendment 2 takes away a person's
>Constitutional rights if they happen to be homosexual.  I have also
>heard, albeit not from the liberal major media, that all Amendment 2
>says is that homosexuals are not granted SPECIAL rights, i.e.,
>privileges not given to WASPs.  Before I let Tom Brokaw, Dan Rather,
>Peter Jennings, Barbra Streisand, FOB Linda BloodworthThomason, Diane
>English, and Queer Nation make up my mind for me, I would like to know
>the FACTS, the TRUTH.  I am requesting a copy of the actual text of
>Colorado Amendment 2.  This can either be emailed to me (as opposed
>to posted on the net) or someone can send me thier mailing address and
>I'll send them a SASE for a Xerox (TM) copy.

Here it is:

 Article 2, of the Colorado Constitution is amended by the addition of
 Sec. 30, which shall state as follows:

 NO PROTECTED STATUS BASED ON HOMOSEXUAL, LESBIAN OR BISEXUAL
 ORIENTATION.  Neither the State of Colorado, through any of its
 branches or departments, nor any of its agencies, political
 subdivisions, municipalities or school districts, shall enact, adopt
 or enforce any statute, regulation, ordinance or policy whereby
 homosexual, lesbian, or bisexual orientation, conduct, practices or
 relationships shall constitute or otherwise be the basis of, or
 entitle any person or class of persons to have or claim any minority
 status, quota preferences, protected status or claim or
 discrimination.  This section of the Constitution shall be in all
 respects selfexecuting.

As you can see, the amendment was cleverly phrased to imply that it prevents
gays from acquiring special rights, but if you exclude the filler, you get:

Colorado...shall not adopt any statute...whereby homosexual...practices or
relationships...shall entitle any person... to claim of discrimination.

Since anybody else =can= be protected from discrimination, this amendment is
on very shaky ground with respect to the 14th Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution.  (You can look that one up yourself)

Greg Bradt aka ()The Lensman()

greg_bradt@msmgate.mrg.uswest.com | Freedom means sometimes
Genie: G.BRADT                    | having to put up with
Compuserve: 70206,172             | things that really
BBS: (303)290 9243                | piss you off.
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:13561 alt.sex:41627 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:12187 alt.politics.correct:6140 alt.politics.equality:58
From: krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.sex,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.correct,alt.politics.equality
Subject: Re: Colorado Amendment2 Query
Date: 8 Jan 93 15:29:21 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson AZ

In article <1993Jan7.232759.10507@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> lrabe@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Lee A Rabe) writes:
>
>>(Most straight people do not appear to be aware that there are sodomy laws
>>in place in about 50% of states in the U.S. Straight people in these
>>states have the legal advantage of being able to kiss their SO's without
>>committing a felony.)
>
>Just 'cause I'm studying law this quarter:
>
>FYI: in most state laws that prohibit sodomy, sodomy is defined as "sexual 
>practices that involve the sexual organs of one party and the mouth or
>anus of the other."  So, yes, homosexual sex IS included in here, but so is
>ANY kind of oral or anal sex.  So be careful next time you get/give a blow
>job in a state with these laws....
>
>Of course, they tend not to prosecute heterosexuals....

What are the arrest stats?  I'll bet they arrest as many straights as gays.

That number is probably very nearly zero.

Ted


-- 
So the Maples formed a union, and demanded equal rights, "The Oaks are just 
too greedy.  We will make them give us light!"  Now there's no more Oak 
oppression, for they passed a noble law.  And the trees are all kept equal, 
by hatchet, axe and saw.     -  Rush, The Trees
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh

Will Bralick writes:
> 
> Well, Miss Chelsea Clinton will avoid going to public school this 
> year by virtue of her parents' money and connections.  As Mr. Limbaugh 
                                                            ^^^^^^^^^^^^
> pointed out today, Gov. Clinton opposes school choice for middle and 
> lower class people, but not members of his own economic class.
> 
	i'm not sure we can credit rush for *pointing this out*...
	i believe a full-day before, our favorite education czar,
	bill bennett, was harping on the clintons for making this
	choice while opposing the basic tenets of george bush's
	school choice on national tv.   hey, its o.k. if rush gets
	his ideas elsewhere, but will the man please stick to his
	promise to give full credit when doing so?!
> 

peace&cookies,
pjm.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: wbralick@afit.af.mil (Will Bralick)
Subject: Out of town
Organization: Self-similar
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 03:55:30 GMT


For any that care ... I will be out of town for awhile.  If you don't
hear from me it isn't because I don't care -- it's that I can't.  ;-)


Best regards,

-- 

Will Bralick			          Speaking _only_ for myself.

Standard disclaimers apply.            Void where prohibitted by law.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle)
Subject: Re: Chelsea's school ...
Keywords: school choice, hypocrisy
Organization: Psych Department, Indiana University
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 17:31:04 GMT

wbralick@afit.af.mil (Will Bralick) writes:
>nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle) writes:
>|     Perhaps. It's my belief that teachers do just as much to produce 
>| creative minds as parents. In fact, depending on which parents we're 
>| talking about, teachers might actually have a better batting average.

>Unlike parents, teachers depend on other parents to supply them with
>young skulls full of mush.  As has been pointed out, parents have a more
>direct and more profound impact on their childrens' formation.  Best of
>all would be to be both a parent _and_ a teacher.

    In that case I should introduce you to my mother and tell you some 
stories about my father. Both are/were teachers in the public schools 
and they have had a profound influence on me. That's probably the main 
reason that I'm such an ardent supporter of public schools.

>|     Would you then agree that the primary goal of Bush's school choice 
>| plan is the wholesale dismantlement of the public education system? 

>No, I do not.  The primary goal is to bring the positive forces of
>competition into K-12 education.  Hmm... would you agree that it makes
>sense to fund pilot programs in school choice and see if they meet with
>any success?

    Yes, I have no problem with pilot programs.

>  Note that the students and parents should be permitted to
>choose any public or private (sectarian or non) school to spend their
>voucher.  

    Even under that stipulation I'm still in favor of running the pilot 
program, and in the event that I'm proven wrong I'll be right in there 
promoting school choice. Until then, I stay with my gut feelings which 
are to be very suspicious of anyone who claims to have quick and easy 
ways to fix the education system.

--
Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
Psychology Department               Indiana University
nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.sex,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.equality,alt.society.civil-liberty,talk.politics.misc
From: mrl28033@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Michael R Linksvayer)
Subject: Re: Colorado Amendment2 Query
Followup-To: alt.politics.equality,alt.society.civil-liberty,talk.politics.misc
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 06:43:42 GMT

Note followup-to: This thread doesn't have much to do with sex
or limbaugh anymore (did it ever?). talk.politics.misc,
alt.society.civil-liberty and alt.politics.equality added...

In article <1993Jan5.180752.2262@uswmrg.mrg.uswest.com.mrg.uswest.com> greg_bradt@msmgate.mrg.uswest.com (Greg Bradt) writes:
>In article <C0DKsH.2rx@news.cso.uiuc.edu> Michael R Linksvayer,
>mrl28033@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu writes:
>>If one is really interested in applying the 14th amendment then
>>all antidiscrimination laws should be eliminated. However, this
>>is a major task, and the Colorado amendment is a step in the
>>right direction. It seems that the amendment may have been
>>written to appeal to bigotry (mentioning only samesex
>>orientations, rather than simply any sexual orientation) but its
>>effect is to increase freedom and equality under the law. Life
>>is ironic sometimes, isn't it?
>
>Increased freedom?  Perhaps only the freedom to isolate oneself from
>people who are different.  Equality?  Only in the sense that everyone has
>an opportunity to advance to a level equal to where their race (or other
>category) is approved of by the empowered elite.

I said that the effect is to increase freedom and equality
_under the law_. This is the sort of equality the 14th amendment
is about. I do not think the law should be (ab)used in an
attempt to enforce other standards of equality. Apparently you
disagree.

>If I understand you  correctly, you feel that there should be absolutely
>no legislation that protects oppressed minorities from unfair
>discrimination.  

You understand me correctly, except that I feel that state
entities should not be allowed to discriminate at all.

>Hence, people should legally be able to discriminate
>against any class or  category of people they chose to.  It's perfectly
>"American" to permit people in power to categorically exclude blacks,
>jews, homosexuals, christians, or anybody else they take a dislike to. 
>It sounds way too much like legalized bigotry to me.  Give a person
>enough power and  absolutely no social responsibility and you get
>tyranny, just the opposite of =my= ideal America.

First, cut the "American" crap. I don't care if it is American
or Assyrian or Martian. Second, I am not advocating giving
anyone power or removing social responsibility. People should
have the power to enter or not enter into any relationship
where the other party agrees.  People should have
responsibility for any relationship they voluntarily create or
enter.

Your .signature says:
>Freedom means sometimes having to put up with things that
>really piss you off.

I don't think you understand.

-- 
Mike Linksvayer   m-linksvayer@uiuc.edu   +1 217 344 1326
From: laurel.schippers@hal9k.ann-arbor.mi.us (Laurel Schippers) 
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: RE: LIFESTYLE CHOICES AND
Date: 3 Jan 93 20:33:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: HAL 9000 BBS, W-NET HQ, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
Reply-To: laurel.schippers@hal9k.ann-arbor.mi.us (Laurel Schippers) 

>If a woman can decide
>to have an abortion for purely personal economic reasons, then her
decision
>to have a child must also be based on purely personal economic reasons,
and
>there is no secularly logical way she can coerce an involuntary tax out
>of the man for a decision she makes unilaterally about her own economic
>future.

She is making a decision about the CHILD's economic future, too.
Once it is born, it must be supported.
                                                                           
----
+------------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| HAL 9000 BBS +1 313 663 4173 or 663 3959 | Four 14.4k v.32bis dial-ins |
| Public Access QWK-to-Usenet gateway      | With PCBoard 14.5aM & uuPCB |
+------------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:13196 alt.politics.correct:6094
From: krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.correct
Subject: Re: "My Cabinet" by Clinton (was Re: Affirmative action is dead)
Date: 5 Jan 93 17:46:54 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson AZ

In article <1993Jan03.033540.2412@microsoft.com> bobsarv@microsoft.com (Bob Sarver) writes:
 
# What politically incorrect minorities would you propose?

How about white males of european heritage?

Ted

-- 
So the Maples formed a union, and demanded equal rights, "The Oaks are just 
too greedy.  We will make them give us light!"  Now there's no more Oak 
oppression, for they passed a noble law.  And the trees are all kept equal, 
by hatchet, axe and saw.     -  Rush, The Trees
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: kellyj@leland.Stanford.EDU (Kelly Johnson)
Subject: Re: Fornication?!
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 93 18:29:45 GMT

In article <3883.97.uupcb@hal9k.ann-arbor.mi.us> laurel.schippers@hal9k.ann-arbor.mi.us (Laurel Schippers)  writes:
>If parents teach their children 'moral values' but none of the facts,
>when are they supposed to learn them? Do you expect them to pull
>a crash course on their wedding nights to learn all those things
>about sex their parents never knew and couldn't/wouldn't teach
>them? "Sheltering" your children from any knowledge of sex
>will only hurt them; when it is "okay" for them to be sexual
>beings (i.e. after marriage) they will still believe that
>sex is wrong and dirty.
>
>Teach your moral values, but don't lie to your kids.
>---

If this is "shot" at Christians then I need to inform you a bit.
Many Chrisian churches require pre-marital counseling before they
will marry a couple.  Among other things, the couseling sessions
include sex related issues designed to deal with that "Wedding Night".

Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari)
Subject: Re: Sexuality
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 20:30:17 GMT

In article <1993Jan11.184632.20121@gordian.com> mike@gordian.com (Michael A. Thomas) writes:
>In article <1993Jan10.174837.26171@wam.umd.edu>, rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:
>> 	Is this for real?  
>> 
>> 	I mean, are these "Kill a queer for Jesus" bumper stickers 
>> 	anythingbut a joke, or do people take them seriously?
>
>    About as much of a joke as the Southern Baptist Convention 
>might take a bumper sticker which stated:
>
>    "Kill a Fundie for Satan".
>
>    You make me ill.


	Well, Mike, you're a judgemental ass.  Someone asks a question
	about something, and look at your reaction.  



-- 
      Blaming "society" for your problems is like blaming clouds for rain.
 ---  boycott == coercion == censorship == closed mindedness == cowardice  ---
	      "Psalms 23:1  The LORD is my shepherd; I shall not want."  
		Shepherds are for sheep.   -----      Pain teaches.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: vanya@leland.Stanford.EDU (john tillinghast)
Subject: Re: Lifestyle Choices and Secular Reasoning
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 93 09:58:41 GMT

In article <C0AzLt.DD2@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (kellmeyer steven l) writes:
>>>
>>>Look, whatever your opinion of secular reasoning, religiously
>>>justified 'reasoning' has a pretty poor history as well.  The Catholic
>>>church is responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths alone.  Look
>>>-Howard
>>>
>>Shouldn't that be millions?
>
>Millions should be used in reference to those wars started since 
>"the Age of Reason".  No matter how you add the numbers, more people
>have been killed by the judicious application of science in support
>of secular reasons for killing than have been killed by all wars of
>religion combined.
>
>Steve Kellmeyer

In fairness you should realize that the reason the numbers are higher for more recent events is only
that the population increased greatly in the last two centuries -- which was only possible due to
a few side effect of the "Age of Reason", like expanded trade and industrial capitalism (all based
on the pursuit of the despised lucre) and, yes, scientific understanding of agriculture and disease.

By the way, the notion that Nazism and Communism were based on "judicious application of science" is
just another bit of outrageous propoganda fabricated by Nazis and Communists with about as much basis in
reality as the Perfect Aryan or Homo Sovieticus. Who knows, if Communism had lasted for 2000 years,
maybe by the end of that time it would have evolved into something relatively benign, focusing on the
more humanitarian aspects of its canonical text and somewhat less on the sections urging people to
kill and revolt and have only contempt for any goals short of total violent revolution. But I would hardly
say that could make up for the centuries of suffering, even if there are more people alive by the
end of it than there are now.

John Tillinghast
vanya@cardinal.stanford.edu
"Oh, God is very, very real -- as real as Santa Claus"

Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: wbralick@afit.af.mil (Will Bralick)
Subject: Re: Clarence Thomas
Organization: Self-similar
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 18:05:58 GMT

In article <3887.97.uupcb@hal9k.ann-arbor.mi.us> laurel.schippers@hal9k.ann-arbor.mi.us (Laurel Schippers)  writes:
| Um, "one or two" years as a judge does not a Justice make. There were
| plenty of qualified jurists (such as Edith Jones) who were passed
| over, mysteriously, for Thomas. A position as a political appointee
| at a regulatory agency, which deals with ONE AREA of the law,
| doesn't provide much background.  A qualified Justice ought to
| have a good deal of real legal experience.

Please indicate where one can find in the constitution the requirement 
that a judge needs to be a lawyer.  I checked all of Article III, as
well as Article II, Section 2, Paragraph 2.  It seems to me that Supreme 
Court justices do not need to be lawyers at all.  The only reason the ABA 
is involved in the process is that so many congress critters suffer from 
being lawyers themselves and they seek to perpetuate their guild throughout 
all branches of the national government.

| Oh, and the ABA barely found Thomas qualified. He didn't get a very
| high rating at all.

I really couldn't care less whether Justice Thomas pleases any lawyer.
The question of whether he pleases the ABA has nothing to do with his
qualifications to be a Supreme Court justice.


Regards,

-- 

Will Bralick			          Speaking _only_ for myself.

Standard disclaimers apply.            Void where prohibitted by law.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: palane@iastate.edu (Paul A. Lane)
Subject: Re: Sexuality
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 07:34:44 GMT

In <1992Dec30.120051.29262@netcom.com> harp@netcom.com (Gregory O. Harp)writes:

>I guess it depends where you look.  I run into a lot of people who are
>willing to _say_ that they think homosexuality should be tolerated,
>but in practice they don't tolerate it.  People's voices suddenly drop
>to a whisper to mention that they think that so-and-so may be gay.
>I'm sure I would see more of this is I was a homosexual trying to make
>it in today's world.

Some of this depends upon what you mean by tolerate. A close friend of mine
(after a breakup of a longterm relationship) went through a period where he
had a number of casual affairs. I feel this to be morally wrong and some-
thing which I could not practice.

However, I did not criticize him nor did it really affect our friendship.
I practice tolerance in the sense that unless asked to give an opinion,
keep my mouth shut. A close relative of mine is gay. I don't believe know-
ing this has seriously changed our relationship, but this is a separate
from whether or not I believe that what he is doing is right.

As for lowered voices, there are still a few taboos in our society. I would
not reveal someone's sexuality not because of my intolerance, but because of
society's.

Paul