HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: greg_bradt@msmgate.mrg.uswest.com (Greg Bradt)
Subject: Re: Your own words, of course != bigot
XXXDate: Thu, 31 Dec 92 18:34:14 GMT
XUserAgent: Nuntius v1.1.1d16
XXXMessageID: <A7688B3660050614@greg_bradt.mrg.uswest.com>
Organization: US West Marketing Resources
NntpPostingHost: greg_bradt.mrg.uswest.com
Date: 31 Dec 92 18:35:33 GMT

In article <C03MnF.3qz@NeoSoft.com> Jim Shirreffs, jpsb@NeoSoft.com writes:
>The short version is: homosexual sex is a 
>behavior which is *not* embraced by most Americans. It is outside of our
>shared values. Continued erosion of are shared values will harm our society.
>Therefore is should not be given the same status are heterosexual 
>behavior. 

This has been the essence of your argument in this forum, and it is not an
uncommon point of view.  However, I find it a particularly scary one, and
one that threatens the very core of our values as a country.

The idea that the strength of our society is based on sharing as many of the
same values as possible is contrary to my understanding of the principles
this country was founded on.  The only values that it is important that we
all share are those which allow us to enjoy the freedoms and benefits of the
culturally diverse society (and world) that we are. 

The most important core of those "shared values" are Life, Liberty and the
Pursuit of Happiness.  Yet, there are those who find diversity (in the form
of differences from their personal or religious ideals) to be some sort of
personal threat.  They would rather see a "homogenized" society.  So, they
attempt to have their personal "values" (read "morals") adopted as the
"correct values."

One of the most scary examples of this is the way people insist on
perpetuating myths about homosexuality.  There is no ethical justification
for treating gays any differently than the rest of us, yet some people
insist on doing so, and use the issue to try to fool people into thinking
that this has some "value" to our society, when it is, in fact, a
=curtailment= of Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

The day that we, as a society, cease to value diversity over "uniformity"
(i.e. "shared values") is the day that our society has lost it's most
valuable quality.

Greg Bradt aka ()The Lensman()

greg_bradt@msmgate.mrg.uswest.com | 
Genie: G.BRADT                    |   having to put up with
Compuserve: 70206,172             |   things that really
BBS: (303)290 9243                |   piss you off.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: snodgras@lclark.edu (Bil Snodgrass)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Sexuality
Date: 30 Dec 92 20:03:57 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Lewis & Clark College, Portland OR

In article <C02rx3.79q@sdf.lonestar.org> marco@sdf.lonestar.org (Steve Giammarco) writes:
>In article <1hq25lINNnra@hp-col.col.hp.com> smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes:
>
>
>>> My guess is that what is being sought is acceptance, not tolerance.  The 
>>> problem is that living a gay lifestyle is not OK (my values).  That is not
>>> to say that homosexuals are inherently evil, but that God did not intend us 
>>> to function this way.  Nor did he intend for us to be sexually active 
>>> outside of marriage, indulge in "immoral" behavior, ....  
>
>By this, of course, you must be speaking of YOUR OWN PERSONAL GOD.  This is
>not the "god" I understand and accept. 
>
>>> These are my beliefs. I don't expect you to adopt them, nor do I expect you 
>>> to accept them.  All I ask in return is that you give me the same respect in
>>> return.  In my view, teaching my children views which are in direct conflict
>>> with our (my wife and I) values is a violation of this respect. 


Okay....Now remember I am the person who supports you and your individule
rights.......Now are you willing to allow a class on sexuality that
shows homosexuality and heterosexuality in the same unbiased light, a
class that would be optional????


Bil Snodgrass III

>
>
>-- 
>Steve Giammarco/5330 Peterson Lane/Dallas TX 75240
>marco@sdf.lonestar.org
>loveyameanit.
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:12053 alt.politics.clinton:18982 alt.politics.bush:14822 alt.politics.homosexuality:8274 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:10543
From: aa680@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Vern Morrison)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Screw you!  On second thought, forget it
Date: 21 Dec 92 14:31:57 GMT
Reply-To: aa680@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Vern Morrison)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) says:

>Zack, Screw you!  I am so tired of responding to you, I wonder why I continue 

      [lecture about military housing deleted]
      
>(By the way, Zack, sorry about the screw you.  I was frustrated when I read 
>the post and my editor doesn't allow for editing.  Not much of an editor, Huh?

      True.  But then, you're not much of a writer, either.

-- 
    "The biggest problem with reading [Usenet] is there is so much and it 
is all so interesting.  It is easy to be enamored with it.  Be selective
about which groups you read.  It could mean your job, your family, or your
college career."  --Ed Krol, _The Whole Internet User's Guide and Catalog_
From: rovero@attu.oc.nps.navy.mil (Josh Rovero)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Clint's appointments
Date: 25 Dec 92 22:35:11 GMT
Organization: Naval Postgraduate School,Monterey CA

In article <1992Dec24.074405.3512@sol.ctr.columbia.edu> a74k110@phobos.ucc.umass.edu writes:
>Attorney General: nope, I believe she's a lawyer from Connecticut

Bzzzzzt!  Wrong, thank you for playing.

The nominee for Attorney General IS a lawyer in Connecticut (the chief in
house counsel for Aetna Insurance -- ought to make for some interesting
conflicts of interest on health and other insurance matters).

Zoe Baird served in both the Carter Justice Dept AND White House.  Add her
to the retread list......

-- 
Josh Rovero   (rovero@oc.nps.navy.mil) | or Internet 5346p@cc.nps.navy.mil 
Department of Oceanography, Code OC/Rv |      Bitnet 5346p@NAVPGS 
Naval Postgraduate School              |              
Monterey, CA  93943   (408) 646-2084   |
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: cfthb@ux1.cts.eiu.edu (Howard Black)
Subject: Re: Sexuality
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 01:39:45 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Eastern Illinois University

In article <1992Dec30.194335.8233@asl.dl.nec.com> dillhoff@aslws01.asl.dl.nec.com (Doug Dillhoff) writes:

   [concerning whether homosexuality is a choice or not; DD asserts the
former]

>I didn't say they were opinions and not facts, you did. I have read
>articles that support what I wrote.

    Please cite them.  I know that everything in print is right, and
anxiously await your sources.

-- 
   ******************************************************************
     Howard Black                             cfthb@ux1.cts.eiu.edu
     Department of Chemistry                  Eastern Illinois Univ. 
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:12500 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:10920 alt.politics.clinton:19240 alt.politics.bush:15076 alt.politics.homosexuality:8568
From: smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Education Regarding Alternative Family Units (Re: The Analogy Betwixt Gays & Blacks (Re: Children in Same-gender Families))
Date: 30 Dec 1992 20:51:46 GMT
Organization: Colorado Springs IT Center
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: fajita19.cs.itc.hp.com

snodgras@lclark.edu (Bil Snodgrass) writes:
> Why then did you bring up the teaching of beastiality in a classroom
> when we were discussing teaching homosexuality......along with 
> heterosexuality?  You brought beastiality into the conversation....why?
> It looks like a tie into me......

I was asking about other "...alities".   Which ones should be taught, 
which ones should be left out. 

> We were talking about my coming to the aid of a person whose values
> were different than mine....and you brought up seperation of Church and
> state and for the second time, above I am replying that I didn't bring
> that up...and that it was a different topic matter all together....

Yes, you did not bring it up.  It was part of the discussion you had 
joined halfway.  As part of the conversation, not neccesarity *at* 
you, I was commenting on it.  If you find it irrelevent, feel free 
to ignore it. 

> Naw I havne't flamed yet....I for you my dear I won't flame.  It is fun
> to have you twist things in public.....

You have an odd sense of fun..if someone were trying to intentionally 
twist what you say, you find that fun?  

> >> You still after three postings have not once refered to my original
> >> posting when I supported the 'values' of a man who didn't agree with
> >> my lifestyle. 
> >
> >Oh!  You want me to explicitly say when I *agree* with you!  Oh, OK. 
> 
> Nope, I didn't ask you ever to agree with me.  I, just right above for the
> third time, asked for you to post to my original posting.  

??  Oh, I responded to the wrong part of your posting?  Go ahead and tell 
me which part you want me to post, and I'll post it along with my thoughts 
on it.  Or, if you want to be real efficient, go ahead and tell me how 
I should respond, and I'll add that in for you. Anything else I can
do for you?

Walter

(Such a productive conversation...)

Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: wbralick@afit.af.mil (Will Bralick)
Subject: Re: Welcome to alt.conservative.forum
Organization: Self-similar
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 19:28:26 GMT

In article <1992Dec18.170305.11748@anasazi.com> john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore) writes:
| This new group was created to provide a forum for conservative ideas. In
| that sense, it is a counterpart to talk.politics.progressive, and pehaps
| at some time should become talk.politics.conservative.

So much for the moderation/anti-moderation debate ;-)  The new alt group 
has not yet propagated this far and so I will cross post to Mr. Limbaugh's 
group until it does so.  In keeping with the purpose of this group I will 
ignore flamy flapdoodle from all parties (unless it pleases me to ridicule 
them).  In any case, I will not waste my time trading tirades with loony
liberal losers -- life will eventually educate even them far better than 
can man.

There are at least three classifications of thinking conservatives -- 
libertarian conservatives (characterized by a small-government perspec-
tive including varying degrees of the social view that government should 
just keep us from killing each other, but otherwise stay out of our lives),
neo-conservatives (the paradigmatic neocon is an ex-60's radical who became 
disenchanted with the ``movement'' after seeing that liberal ``solutions'' 
do not work -- can be more interventionist abroad than the libertarian 
conservative), and paleo (or classical) conservatives (characterized by 
a respect for tradition -- believes that law should not only prevent us 
from killing each other but should also promote virtue and punish vice).  
Would anybody like to suggest more categories?  Feel free to quibble with 
my thumbnail sketches above.

Personally, I have moved over the years from being a classical conservative 
to the libertarian conservative and now back to the classical conservative 
position where I seem to have settled.


Now, why don't we all go out and get a copy of Russell Kirk's _The Con-
servative Mind_ and we can read it a chapter-at-a-time and then discuss 
it here.


Regards,

-- 

Will Bralick			          Speaking _only_ for myself.

Standard disclaimers apply.            Void where prohibitted by law.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Subject: Re: Showering in the Military (Re: Gays in the Military..what nobody is talking about: )
Reply-To: john@anasazi.com
Organization: Anasazi, Inc.  Phoenix, Arizona USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 15:32:08 GMT

Keywords: 

In article <1992Dec30.154724.12695@m5.harvard.edu> borden@m5.harvard.edu writes:
]In article <1992Dec30.042419.2105@anasazi.com> john@anasazi.com writes:
]
]Gays constitute about ten percent of the population.  This is a very
]significant percentage.

This is a bogus number, also. It is based on a Kinsey study where the
subjects were self-selected, and where gayness was defined as anyone
who admitted any single instance in their life of any homosexual
activity. A better number is 2 - 2.5%.
]
]>because blackness is not a behavioral trait.
]
]So is Christianity.  What's the difference?  I don't accept the precepts of
]Christianity, but I respect the right to practice it.  I am not inclined
]towards homosexuality, but I respect people's right to practice it.  Some of
]my best friends are Christian; some of my best friends are gay, some of my
]best friends are both Christian and gay.  And I don't mind at all!  It's
]entirely up to them.
Christianity is a belief, not a trait. We are not talking about whether
you or I mind it, we are talking about military unit cohesiveness.

-- 
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
 - - Tree Hugger's Nightmare: Mt. Graham Red Squirrel Stew ...
 - - Have you ever tried looking at the stars through a squirrel? - - -
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: mvp@netcom.com (Mike Van Pelt)
Subject: Re: Taxing medical benefits ... NOT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 22:54:50 GMT

In article <1992Dec22.023649.2465@cbnewse.cb.att.com> harryo@cbnewse.cb.att.com (harold.r.holm) writes:
>So don't seriously entertain any slick, 
>sock-the-worker Robin-Hood ideas like this, or it will end up burning
>its perpetrators' political rear ends not all that far down the road.  

Shhhhh!  *Let* 'em do something stupid like this.  Go ahead.
Make the Republican Party's day.

-- 
Mike Van Pelt          | What happens if a big asteroid hits Earth?
mvp@netcom.com         | Judging from realistic simulations involving a
                       | sledge hammer and a common laboratory frog, we
                       | can assume it will be pretty bad. -- Dave Barry
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:12521 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:10943 alt.politics.clinton:19261 alt.politics.bush:15099 alt.politics.homosexuality:8588
From: smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Bisexuality (was Re: [a long list of subjects])
Date: 30 Dec 1992 23:01:28 GMT
Organization: Colorado Springs IT Center
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: fajita19.cs.itc.hp.com

ecl@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (Evelyn C. Leeper) writes:
> It is a source of constant amazement to me that men who are attracted
> to both blondes and brunettes have such difficulty with the concept that
> bisexuals can be monogamous.

That is why I used the wording "active", saying that the person 
currently practiced bisexuality.  

Walter

Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:12849 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:11297 alt.politics.clinton:19496 alt.politics.bush:15396
From: briand@anasazi.com (Brian Douglass)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: The Ultimate Hypocrisy
Date: 23 Dec 92 22:37:37 GMT
Organization: Anasazi Inc Phx Az USA

In article <BzoCp3.BuC@csugrad.cs.vt.edu> jaitken@csugrad.cs.vt.edu (Jeff Aitken) writes:
>
>     I promised awhile back to re-enter this discussion when
>finals were over.....   As I mentioned, the abortion debate
>and the one over euthanasia are similar in many respects.
>Both involve what some consider "murder" and "live" human 
>beings.  I don't remember where I read this (but I could
>produce a reference, if you really don't believe me - it 
>will take an hour or two at the library)  The discussion
>in this particular book centers on what we mean by "alive".
>I don't have exact quotes, so the following is (at best) paraphrasing
>from  the book:
>     ... really taking the life of someone?  ... They are
>not 'alive' in the true sense of the word.  What do we mean by 
>'alive'?  Some consider the mere presence of a heartbeat
>to signify true life.  Some consider meaningless chemical activities
>that take place in the brain as a sign of life.  But is something
>that has a heartbeat and chemical activity necessarily "alive"?
>No, being alive means more than that.  It means being able to
>think, to laugh, to relate in some way or another to the world
>around.
>
>     This is the general idea I use as a definition of "life"
>When does a group of cells become a "locus of rights"?  In my book
>it happens when it pops out into the world of its own accord.

How about this one.  A life exists when the organism is self-sustaining.
That is when there exists viabile possibility that the organism can sustain
life outside it's biological womb.

This is the general definition of a life that the Supreme Court decided on
in Roe v Wade, which negated the argument of both those that sought
abortion up until birth, and those that declared life began at conception.

And since its estimated that 30% of all pregnancies end in a miscarriage
during the first trimester, the enevitablity of life after conception is
not guaranteed.  While medical science can now give fetuses of only 23
weeks of development a chance outside the womb, the chance of life before full
term development is also possible.
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:12793 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:11213 alt.politics.clinton:19460 alt.politics.bush:15358 alt.politics.homosexuality:8799
From: rlc1028@zeus.tamu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Education Regarding Alternative Family Units (Re: The Analogy Betwixt Gays & Blacks (Re: Children in Same-gender Families))
Date: 1 Jan 1993 18:09 CST
Organization: Texas A&M University, College Station, TX
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: zeus.tamu.edu

In article <1992Dec30.211645.10640@porthos.cc.bellcore.com>, wgb3@pyuxf.uucp (25336-buoni) writes...
| 
|I was responding to your comment about suicide.  I regard suicide as a selfish
|act perpetrated by an individual who doesn't have the courage to deal with
|life on life's terms.

	Yes.  But then since every man's trials in life are different, I
don't like to regard all suicides as cases of cowards.  

	Of course, living is also pretty selfish.  

	One can also kill one's self for the benefit of others.  Consider
people who make the "ultimate" sacrfifice.  Didn't Jesus say something 
about this?  Of course, if other people truly mean more to a man than his
own life, then the ultimate sacrifice would be for him to take the life
of one friend to save the life of another.  I mean, there's more value
involved...

	I had a friend whose parents told him not to come home for 
Christmas this year because, while they had begun to accept his 
homosexuality a bit, they had since been counseled by their religious
leaders, and decided to take a tougher stand.  The father even went to
Oregon to help pass Prop 9.  

	After two months of intransigence and
rejection by his parents, and surely due to other troubles as well,
my friend jumped off a bridge a week before X-mas.

	I regret his action, and I do not think anything is worth
giving up your life, but I do know that my friend was no coward.  I
do hold it against his parents and their Godly advisors, at least in
part.

	If you ever have a Gay child, don't ever reject him or her, 
regardless of what you may feel about his "sin".

Gadson
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:12464 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:10882 alt.politics.clinton:19217 alt.politics.bush:15044 alt.politics.homosexuality:8541
From: smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Education Regarding Alternative Family Units (Re: The Analogy Betwixt Gays & Blacks (Re: Children in Same-gender Families))
Date: 30 Dec 1992 17:31:46 GMT
Organization: Colorado Springs IT Center
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: fajita19.cs.itc.hp.com

twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce) writes:
> In article <1hq1c7INNnba@hp-col.col.hp.com> smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes:
> 
> >fritzs@microsoft.com (Fritz Sands) writes:
> >
> >> It is, IMO, imperative, however, that
> >> the second concept -- that gays, moral or not, live together, can be quite
> >> happy and "normal" and can be good parents raising "normal" children --
> >> be taught.  
> >
> >3) Should it also be taught that bisexuals do those things?  How would 
> >   you do it? 
> 
> I don't think it's necessary to make that addition.  In my experience,
> few straight people make a serious distinction between bisexuals and
> homosexuals.

Tim,

Yeah, you're probobly right there.  My wife and I were talking about that a couple 
of weeks ago, (diff between gay/bi) and her feelings were that gay people didn't 
'choose' to be gay, they just 'are'; whereas bi people chose to be bi, because 
they like sex and it offers them more chances for it.  ie, homosexuality as a 
case-of-being and orientation, and bisexuality is a choice made to offer more 
chances for sex.   Her view was more sympathetic (for lack of a better word) 
to homosexuals than to bisexuals.  

Looking at it from that angle, I can see where there would be a difference 
between teaching same-sex families, vs teaching families where one or both 
of the parents are active bisexuals.  It is the question of sexual monogamy. 
Most people I know of think that marriage should be monogamous.  Not that 
it always is, but *should* be; we're talking an ideal.  Active homosexual parents 
can be monogamous, but by definition, the appearance is that active 
bisexual parents cannot, unless they are married to a male and a female. 
So teaching bisexual families, unlike homosexual families, would drag in 
sexual *practice*  and fidelity, along with orientation.

And since *practice* was involved in bisexuality, I added whatever other
...alities I could...which apparently set some off...that wasnt the intent. 

So, looking at it that way, do you think (or anyone else who has an 
opinion) that bisexuality should be brought up as well?  

Walter
 
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton
From: cfthb@ux1.cts.eiu.edu (Howard Black)
Subject: Re: Sexuality
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 21:15:26 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Eastern Illinois University

In article <1hvgakINN9dj@hp-col.col.hp.com> smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes:

>.."I have, in fact, corresponded
>both on the net and via email with gays who *really are* non-judgemental
>and *really don't* feel the need to teach everyone, including other people's 
>kids, that homosexuality is ok, moral, etc.  I would be very glad to have
>you demonstrate that you are one of these."  

    The difference, of course, is that the judgements of people of your ilk
cause us direct harm and unhappiness.

-- 
   ******************************************************************
     Howard Black                             cfthb@ux1.cts.eiu.edu
     Department of Chemistry                  Eastern Illinois Univ. 
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:12321 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:10741 alt.politics.clinton:19134 alt.politics.bush:14945