HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cfthb@ux1.cts.eiu.edu (Howard Black)
Subject: Re: Homophobes in the Military..what nobody is talking about: (Re: Gays in the Military..what nobody is talking about:)
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 22:35:36 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Eastern Illinois University

In article <1992Dec16.155404.16544@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
>
>No sexual content there, simply trying to persuade my children that a 
>deviant lifestyle is normal/acceptable.  That is not the public school's 
>job.  It is mine and my wife's.

    I'm glad you recognize your obligation to show children that alternate
lifestyles are normal/acceptable.  "Deviant" is in the eye of the beholder,
and I do not agree.  How about giving the children the facts, and let them
make up their own minds?  The classification of gay couples as following a
deviant lifestyle is not a fact; it's an opinion.

>Where, pray tell, in the Ten Commandments, does it say, "accept your 
>brother?"  The Bible does, however, say, "Go and sin no more," and 

    Who, pray tell, gives a damn?  

>"anyone who teaches sin to children would be better if he had a millstone 
>hung around his neck and been tossed into the sea." (close paraphrase)

    Please don't bring the biblebook into this.  Many people don't use that
handbook - they either use another, or none at all.

>And, if you believe that there is no attempt to persuade, then I have 
>a five-page paper which I wrote for a group over in talk.abortion about 
>a year ago which tells exactly what sexual practices public school 
>sex-ed curricula are trying to encourage.  If you would like me to 

    "Encourage", or say that they occur?

>mail you a copy, I will be glad to, but let me preface it by listing 

    Please don't.

>a couple of sexual practices it does attempt to persuade children that 
>are "normal/acceptable:"
>
>1) prostitution
>2) anal sex
>3) beasiality

    Personally, the only one I have a problem with is the last, since it is
probably not consensual.

>Perhaps they are free to remove their children from the class, but doesn't 
>this smack of the same problem as voluntary prayer?  Children can sit 
>quietly or step out in the hall during the prayer.  Lefties feel that non-
>Christian children will be riddiculed or made to feel outcast if there is 
>voluntary prayer, but there is no problem in Christian children being 
>riddiculed or made to feel outcast in a class where children are told that 
>it is ok for them to have sex with chickens.  

    I am unfamiliar with this last statement.  Please give details.
-- 
   ******************************************************************
     Howard Black                             cfthb@ux1.cts.eiu.edu
     Department of Chemistry                  Eastern Illinois Univ. 
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:11606 alt.politics.clinton:18579
From: jsl+@pitt.edu (John S Lundberg)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Gays in the Military..what nobody is talking about:
Date: 14 Dec 92 19:20:23 GMT
Followup-To: alt.rush-limbaugh
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <1992Dec13.213921.24283@anasazi.com> john@anasazi.com writes:
>There is one other reason: violation of privacy rights of hets who
>would be forced to sleep and shower and otherwise spend intimate times
>with the gays.

There are a number of things that I have never understood about this
argument.  I recall using "gang" showers in high school and college
without ever really worrying about what might be going through the
mind of the guy next to me, for instance.  But there are people who
object to their loss of privacy regardless of the sexual orientation
of those who are in their vicinity--why single out concern about others
sexual orientation for special treatment?  Anyway, how do you *know*
what the orientation of another person is: gays don't have a big
"G" stamped on their forehead (not yet, anyway).

But I suspect that the whole problem could evaporate by insisting on
strict adherence to certain standards of behavior.  In short, ANY kind
of sexual advances would be a serious disciplinary infraction.  What
someone does in their off hours should be their own concern but while
on duty they can be held to strict behavioral limits that should be
sufficient to maintain unit morale, etc.
-- 
John Lundberg
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:11528 alt.politics.clinton:18505
From: sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Homophobes in the Military..what nobody is talking about: (Re: Gays in the Military..what nobody is talking about: )
Date: 13 Dec 92 16:02:11 GMT
Followup-To: alt.rush-limbaugh
Distribution: world, na
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

There is no reason to suppose that gay men and lesbians will sexually
harass people at a greater rate than their heterosexual counterparts.
The perpetrators in the largest number of reported cases of sexual
harassment are straight men.  By the logic used by some of the people
in this thread, straight men should not be allowed in the military
because there is a real danger that they will sexually harass women.

Yes, I've had unwelcome advances from men.  I don't, however, avoid
being in situations that involve contact with men, nor do I insist
on an all-female workplace.  

   The words "bigot" and "homophobe" were not lightly chosen.  The 
notions that these people are advancing reflect a prejudice that 
is not based on fact.

Susan
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush
From: young@ssdd475a.erim.org (Peter Young)
Subject: Re: Legislating niceness (Was Re: Gays in the Military)
In-reply-to: paul@hsh.com's message of 14 Dec 92 21:23:52 GMT
Organization: Environmental Research Institute of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
	<1992Dec11.135536.27074@uswmrg.mrg.uswest.com.mrg.uswest.com>
	<1992Dec14.172352.362@hsh.com>
Date: 15 Dec 92 12:53:18

In article <1992Dec14.172352.362@hsh.com> paul@hsh.com writes:

>   Since when did having religious beliefs become an occupational hazard for a
>   landlord?  Not until this lawsuit, it didn't.  I think you need more balance 
>   between the tenant's rights (anti-discrimination laws) with the landlord's
>   Constitutional rights -- specifically freedom of association on *their* 
>   property.  Yes, let's bring in property rights, since the state is co-opting 
>   them to some degree.

Unfortunately, the court ruled in MUNN v. ILLINOIS, 1876, that "when
private property is devoted to public use, it is subject to public
regulation."  This would seem to fall under the same rubric.

Peter
--
Peter Young
young@erim.org
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:11696 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:10181
From: prabhak@giga.cs.umn.edu (Satya Prabhakar)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: "Dittos" for John Switzer (was Re: Summary Fri 12/4/92)
Date: 15 Dec 92 18:49:49 GMT
Organization: University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, CSci dept.

John Switzer) writes:
>(Satya Prabhakar) writes:
>>Those who confuse Mr. Limbaugh with the Second Coming should realize
>>that he is first a businessman and then a conservative.
>
>So what's your point? Besides Limbaugh is a successful businessman, which
>makes him far more qualified to speak out on economic issues than most of
>the people who are filling Clinton's cabinet.

My point is just this: those who consider Mr. Limbaugh their ideological
guru should be aware that he may not mean everything he says, especially
when there is a financial issue at stake. The stuff about Clinton's
cabinet appointments is peripheral.

Satya Prabhakar
--
______________________________________________________________
My daughter has a pimple on her chin. She is unhappy.
I have a pimple on my chine. I am happy.
It is called perspective.			-Anon
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush
From: roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby)
Subject: Re: Homophobes in the Military..what nobody is talking about: (Re: Gays in the Military..what nobody is talking about: )
Organization: University of Delaware
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 20:02:28 GMT

In article <Bz172F.Bp4@ns1.nodak.edu> green@plains.NoDak.edu (Brad Green) writes:
>One quick comment, I'm getting a little sick of the word "homophobe" being used
>every time someone doesn't believe tha gay lifestyle is proper.  How about we
>start using "hetrophobe" in place of "gay", and see how that works?

OK, obviously we need some definitions...

homophobe:  fear of homosexuals or fear of being homosexual

heterophobe:  fear of heterosexuals or fear of being heterosexual

showerphobe:  fear of showers (see aftermath of initial release of Psycho)

showerhomophobe:  excuse for keeping ban on homosexuals in military

homoist:   Doesn't fear homosexuals, but won't tolerate them

heteroist:   Doesn't fear heterosexuals, but won't tolerate them

homey:    Homey don't play this

homophobist: Doesn't fear homophobes, but won;t tolerate them
    -> similarly: heterophobist

homophobophobe:  fear of homophobes or fear of being a homophobe
   ->  similarly; heterophobophobe 

heterohomophobe: fear of homosexuals of the opposite gender only
  ->  heterohomoist, heterohomophobophobe

homohomophobe:  fear of homosexuals of the same gender only
  ->  homohomoist, homohomophobophobe

I would also define
homohomopapapapapapapapapapapapapapaoooooooooomowmowheterophobophobist, 
but I don't have the time.


P.S.  Doesn't the miltary realize that group same-sex showers (such as 
they practice) is the "root" cause of all homosexuality in the first place???

P.S.S.  For the humor impaired:
:-)    :-)     :-)     :-)     :-)  for the whole article.



-- 
Scott W. Roby           *This sentence no verb.*      "No Matter where you go..
Phys.& Astr.Dept.    ///// / /  /  *|*  \  \ \ \\\\\      there you are!"
Univ.of Delaware    ((((( ( (  (  * + *  )  ) ) )))))   -> Buckaroo Banzai
roby@brahms.udel.edu \\\\\ \ \  \  *|*  /  / / /////   *Standard Disclaimer*
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: session@seq.uncwil.edu (Zack C. Sessions)
Subject: Re: Gays in the Military..what nobody is talking about:
Organization: Univ. of North Carolina @ Wilmington
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 19:04:39 GMT

krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:

>But, the military has done one very important thing to attempt to stamp 
>out heterosexual rape...men and women do not share quarters.

That the biggest load of dung I've read in a while. Got any way at all
of proving that to be a fact and not just some idea of yours?

-- 
Zack Sessions
sessions@seq.uncwil.edu
University of North Carolina at Wilmington (Alumnus)
"Good health is merely the slowest form of dying."
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: teddybur@netcom.com (John Sanger)
Subject: Re: Lift the ban on shower curtains :-)
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 02:46:08 GMT

In article <1992Dec11.190639.6287@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> lfoard@Turing.ORG (Lawrence C. Foard) writes:
>In article <1992Dec11.175624.11765@cs.uwp.edu> evans@cs.uwp.edu (Randy Evans) writes:
>>: 	Do the Gays who are currently showering with Hetero men in the
>>: military get turned on?  For that matter, I have been told that Gays who
>>: shower at gyms which are predominantly Gay do not get turned on.
>>
>>I have showered with both straight and gay men at gyms and have had no 
>>problem with getting turned on.  This was both in group showers and shower
>>stalls.
>
>If this is such a big concern why not install shower curtains?
>
>Or does showering together in the nude do something for male bonding :-)
>
>hmmmmm...
>-- 

As far ago as the middle 1960's the US Air Force did use shower curtains
in the barracks of the bases that I was station on for the many years of my
service with the USAF.
The act of taking a shower was as private as it could be given the public
accomodations of the barracks.



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

Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: model03@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu (John Deke)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Prediction: Limbaugh had hit his peak; He will soon fade out 
Date: 14 Dec 92 17:17:30 CST
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Kansas Academic Computing Services

In article <1992Dec14.104035.26545@news2.cis.umn.edu>, prabhak@giga.cs.umn.edu (Satya Prabhakar) writes:
> I see myself as a bleeding-heart liberal, but I used to love listening
> to Rush Limbaugh's punchy right-wing rhetoric. No more! He now comes
> across as an issue-less cry baby. For a guy of his type to e popular,
> there must be an enemy. Clinton, by virtue of his middle-of-the-road
> approach, is not a good target. Rush, all of a sudden, sounds vacuous
> and stupid. He is adopting a more fundamentalist christian rhetoric to
> keep his base, but it is a wrong move, just like Bush's. Majority do
> not care for this.
> 
> So, watch Rush's ratings to fall and for him to fade. Dear friends, 
> he is suddenly yesterday's newspaper.
> 
> Satya Prabhakar
> --
> ______________________________________________________________
> I hate sig files, particularly ones that refer to themselves!

Now there's an original prediction (unless of course you count the people who
said that Rush's show would die now that Dukakis lost, or that Rush had no
chance now that the Gulf War is over). One little flaw, however, is that the 
new audience data says that Rush's radio audience has now expanded beyond 14
million.

Seriously, though, Rush will probably never be in serious danger of massive
decline unless he someday does something like his speech supporting Clinton but
actually means it instead of using it to make a point. The reason he will be
succesful is that he expresses (very well) the opinions of a very solid 25 to
30% of the populaiton, and has the ability to evoke the curiosity of another
10 to 20%. Even if he can only maintain the rock solid conservative base of
say, 25% of the population, that means he can have a potential TV/radio/other
audience of 65 million (250 million times .25). 

Liberals wishing Rush would go away is as unrealistic as Apple II users wishing
Apple would drop the Mac and readopt the II -- the numbers just don't fly.  
-- 

John Deke
jdeke@oread.cc.ukans.edu
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: hamilton@hitler.chem.uab.edu ()
Subject: Re: The Analogy Betwixt Gays & Blacks (Re: Children in Same-gender Families)
Organization: Chemistry Department, Univ. of Alabama at Birmingham
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 19:06:16 GMT

In article <1grcfmINN4qd@fido.asd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
>In article <1992Dec17.150741.14224@cis.uab.edu>, hamilton@hitler.chem.uab.edu writes:
>|>
>|> It just occured to me that even if gays can change their orientation
>|> this does not make them different from people of whatever appearance,
>|> as witnessed by sex-change operations or Michael Jackson.  
>
>I can't parse that.   Could you reword it in English?

Sorry. Good point.

>
>|> If people
>|> are discriminated against, it is because they stubbornly refuse to
>|> change.
>
>Why?   Please explain.
>
>jon.

I apologize for the sarcastic post without the :) :) being included.
My intended point was that we don't tell women that they would not
be discrimated against if they would just change to men, we do not
tell blacks they should change their skin color.  Why should we
treat homosexuals any different? Answer: we should not. We need to
stand up and say discrimination in employment is wrong, except
in the rare case where it is relevant. We can't have Marlon Brando
playing Malcolm X, now can we? :)

Tracy P Hamilton
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton
From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Subject: Re: Gays in the Military..what nobody is talking about:
Reply-To: john@anasazi.com
Organization: Anasazi, Inc.  Phoenix, Arizona USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 05:45:52 GMT

Keywords: 

In article <YOUNG.92Dec12151134@ssdd475a.erim.org> young@ssdd475a.erim.org (Peter Young) writes:
]In article <1992Dec12.062222.14183@anasazi.com> john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore) writes:
]
]>   Dave, my kind of people are already denied this "opportunity" - we are
]>   too old. If age is a valid reason for discrimination, why not sexual
]>   preference? I contend that I would be a better radio operator and
]>   electronics tech than I was in the Navy 25 years ago! But, I'm not
]>   allowed in. Could it be that the military NEEDS to discriminate in
]>   order to operate effectively? Could it be that this same rationale
]>   might apply to sexual preference? Can you deny it?
]
]But were you persecuted for being old?  Were you hunted down and
]dishonerably discharged because you were old?  Or are you using age as
]a convenient point upon which to hoist your argument?
Had I lied about my age and thus gotten into the military, I would have
been discharged because of it. I should point out that gays are given
HONORABLE discharges.
]
]>   New slogan: Service for Fogies! Let us back into the military! It's
]>   out right! Discrimination is wrong!
]
]If you wanted in so badly, you never should have left in the first
]place.
Obviously a non-sequitur.


-- 
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
"Government is the agent of those who are too refined to do their own mugging."
  Joseph Sobran
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: jnomina@andy.bgsu.edu (A.P.K.)
Subject: Re: Showering in the Military (Re: Gays in the Military..what nobody is talking about:)
Organization: Bowling Green State University B.G., Oh.
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 21:39:06 GMT

session@seq.uncwil.edu (Zack C. Sessions) writes:
> krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:

[ ... a mild debate going on about facilities in the military ... ]

Hi guys.  In Germany, in the barracks, on active duty, we had open
shower areas, not stalls, not curtains, even after they rebuilt
our facilities in the barracks.  I know, so what... but then, it
gets better(?)/worse(?).  In the field, Grafenwoehr and Vilseck
for those who've been there, we had billetting areas.  Many of
those billetting areas not only had open showers (no big deal, if
that's all you've ever known), but they'd also removed all the
doors off of the individual toilet stalls.  After dinner, during
rush hour, you actually had to sit across from someone and
watch them do their business while you sat there and did yours,
about three feet away, in facing stalls.  Not that this has a
lot of bearing on your discussion, I know, but as a bit of
information, nonetheless...

Jim
From: joslin@pogo.isp.pitt.edu (David Joslin)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Cough! Choke! Air, more air!
Date: 14 Dec 92 22:14:54 GMT
Organization: Intelligent Systems Program

gus3@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>IMHO, I think we should create a new newsgroup, alt.conservative.forum,
>that could contain the facts, truths, and seemingly divine insights ...

If you think your own insights are "seemingly divine,"
then you are wasting your time listening to any criticism.

So I think we would all be happier if there were a *moderated*
newsgroup in which only facts, truths and seemingly divine
insights are allowed. 

alt.limbot.moderated anyone?

David
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:11628 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:10107
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Rush vs. Madonna (was Re: Rush just looks at the pictures (was: Summary Wed 12/2/92))
Date: 14 Dec 92 23:13:19 GMT
Organization: LLNL

In article <1992Dec13.154821.12887@porthos.cc.bellcore.com> wgb3@pyuxf.uucp (25336-buoni) writes:
>From porthos!walter!uunet!cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!caen!spool.mu.edu!agate!overload.lbl.gov!s1.gov!lip Sun Dec 13 10:39:39 EST 1992

: 	About Madonna's book _Sex_ itself... Originally, she wanted to
: call it "Erotica" or "X", but decided on that title because of the old
: saying, "Sex sells". Just one of her little jokes.

>[tons of Madonna garbage deleted]

	Why was that "garbage"? She seems like a very nice and likable
person to me, even _if_ she is a bit naive on some issues.

>I'd always wondered what desperate soul would spend $50 for such trash?  I 
>mean $2.50 (or whatever it costs) for Penthouse or Playboy seems too 
>expensive too me.  Myself, I've never understood the attraction of pornography
>(or should I say ARTWORK (?!?)).  How viewing a woman in degrading poses can
>turn someone on is beyond me, but then again I'm a boring Christian!

	I don't think I've seen the variety of poses in Madonna's book
in the _Playboy-Penthouse_ genre of magazines. And how are the poses
necessarily degrading? I happen to like Madonna's exhibitionism, and I
think she's to be congratulated for showing off her body, even though
she insists that she does not have a perfect one. I, for one, like the
sight of some woman who does not look like a _Playboy_ model.

	As to being a "boring Christian", if you wish to indulge in
mawkish self-pity, I won't try to stop you.

: 	Looking over the many other things she has said over the
: years, I find her much more likable than Rush Limbaugh, who is an
: obnoxious, self-righteous boor.

>I'll stick with Rush!  

	As you wish. Do you agree with my assessment of him?
-- 
/Loren Petrich, the Master Blaster
/lip@s1.gov
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton
From: grendel@camelot.bradley.edu (Alyosha Bourgea)
Subject: Re: Gays in the Military..what nobody is talking about:
Organization: Bradley University
Distribution: usa
Date: 14 Dec 92 19:29:01 GMT

In <1992Dec10.155115.15000@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:

>In article <1992Dec8.144622.1013@calmasd.prime.com> jhb@calmasd.prime.com (Jim Bishop) writes:

>>Well, first of all homosexuality is not an alternative lifestyle.  It
>>is a sexual orientation.  People with this orientation have as many and
>>as varied lifestyles as do heterosexuals.  The only lifestyle you need
>>to accept and understand is your own.

>Oh!  Is that why they are forcing homosexuality down the throats of 
>children in public schools?  Now I understand.  I guess if Christianity 
>was a sexual orientation, then public school instruction in it would 
>be mandatory.

No one is forcing anything down anyone's throat.  No one is telling public
school students that homosexuality is "right".  Conversely, no one is telling
them it's wrong.  All that's going on is that some of the more progressive
schools are giving kids the _facts_ and informing them that homosexuality
does exist and is just as acceptable an orientation as heterosexuality.
That's a far cry from forcing kids to be homosexual.

>>As far as accepting and understanding a sexual orientation that is
>>different from yours, that would be a nice goal however it isn't a
>>requirement.  All that is required is that you know that different
>>sexual orientations exist and respect that to each individual their
>>orientation is as valid to them as yours is to you.  Pretty easy, huh?

>I disagree.  When gays are having sex on floats in a parade down the 
>middle of Main Street, I believe that gays are attempting to force 
>acceptance down my throat (no pun intended).

Ha ha.  You're changing the subject, Ted, because you have nothing to argue.
We're not talking about gay parades now, we're talking about public school
education.  Different.

>Ted

--
Yosha Bourgea                  "I think Rodney King said it best when he said,
grendel@camelot.bradley.edu     `Ow!  Ow!  Ow!'"
WHO ARE THE BRAIN POLICE?               --Denis Leary

Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh