HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: frederic@cybernet.cse.fau.edu (Frederic Woodbridge)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: The Analogy Betwixt Gays & Blacks
Date: 19 Dec 92 22:11:08 GMT
Organization: Cybernet BBS, Boca Raton, Florida


> > >In article <645@blue.cis.pitt.edu>, psg+@pitt.edu (Paul S Galvanek) writes
> > >	Blacks cannot, without much effort, change their skin colour,
> > >and Gays cannot change their gender attraction.
> 
That is the most ridiculous thing I have EVER read! What you're trying to
do, Paul, is to pass off abnormal behaviour as commonplace. Whatsmore,
please DO NOT insult Black people all over the world by comparing them with
Homosexuals!!
I note that I expect flames from all our sexually deviant brethren (I use
that word VERY loosely).
Frederic Woodbridge, III.
Florida Atlantic University.
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:11957 talk.politics.space:1557 sci.space:17910
From: jhb@calmasd.prime.com (Jim Bishop)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Gays in the military...after all is said and done...forget it...NO!
Date: 14 Dec 92 06:49:09 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: -

In article <1992Dec8.230854.24093@galileo.physics.arizona.edu>, 
krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
> In article <grendel.723792467@camelot> grendel@camelot.bradley.edu (Alyosha Bourgea) writes:
>>In <1992Dec4.201329.14326@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
>>
>>>Another example of lefties personally attacking a poster instead of arguing 
>>>points of discussion.
>>
>>If there'd been a point to discuss...
>>People who make blatantly homophobic, misogynistic, or religiously arrogant
>>posts don't deserve the respect a rational response accords.
>>
>>>Ted
> 
> That's your opinion.  I think that people who call others the names that 
> you have called the previous poster "don't deserve the respect a rational 
> response accords."  

Well, Ted, now we know why you don't give rational responses.

Jim (Who had decided to let this one go and then Ted used "shut up" as
an argument in the next post.)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: rush@eggneb.astro.ucla.edu (Brian Rush )
Subject: Re: MurderPhobes, RapistPhobes, etc. (was: Re: antihomosex...)
Organization: UCLA Dept of Astronomy
Date: 14 Dec 92 13:35:29 PST

In article <1992Dec14.171835.22346@rchland.ibm.com> jdahl@rchland.vnet.ibm.com (Jared Dahl) writes:
>In article <1992Dec12.163349.8934@mic.ucla.edu>, rush@eggneb.astro.ucla.edu (Brian Rush ) writes:
>|> A solution to the rhetorical confusion here:
>|> 
>|> Since gay rights activists have chosen to define homophobes as
>|> anyone who does not think that homosexuality is a completely
>|> normal, moral, and admirable life-style (and if they
>|> deny this, they are LYING), then let us:
>|> 
>|> coin the term MurderPhobia to describe the viewpoint that murdering
>|> other people is wrong.
>|> 
>|> coin the term RapistPhobe to describe anyone who is so
>|> closed-minded as to deny rapists the right to live how they want.
>|> 
>|> coin the term TheftaPhobia to describe that unbelievably
>|> primitive attitude that stealing is wrong.
>
>All of these crimes hurt other people.  How does being homosexual
>hurt someone else?  Why should you disapprove of them?  Is it your
>job to judge them?
>
>Like shooting stupid fish in a barrel...
>
>Jared Dahl
>Opinions expressed are mine, not my employer's.
>Don't send e-mail - I won't get it.

If that's the only response you can come up with, then just
replace Murderers, Rapists, and Thieves with Prostitutes,
(adult)Pornography advocates, and Drug Users.  It is just as easy to say
that these people don't hurt others, when in reality they do.

The "we don't hurt others" line is the only line that gays have that
even comes close to being a substantial argument, but it quickly falls
apart.

Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:11534 alt.politics.clinton:18509 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:10022 alt.politics.homosexuality:7935 alt.politics.bush:14502
From: rlc1028@zeus.tamu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Children in Same-gender Families
Date: 13 Dec 1992 14:39 CST
Organization: Texas A&M University, College Station, TX
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: zeus.tamu.edu

In article <598@blue.cis.pitt.edu>, psg+@pitt.edu (Paul S Galvanek) writes...

|This is the most over simplistic bit of psycho babble I've ever heard.
|Let me have your phone number and I'll be glad to let you speak to my 
|wife, who was raised from the age of six by her "bi-sexual" mother and
|her live in lesbian "partner".

	No, why don't you have her write it out here for all to see, cuz
I'd like to know the story, and I think others would to.  Just ask her
to sit down at your PC and type it up... or you can do the typing... then
upload it to the Net.



|  You will never hear a more intense hatred
|of homosexuals in your life.  Even after thirty plus years she still
|anguishes over the years of emotional torment she endured at school and
|in other social situations.  And contrary to the popular yack-itty-yack
|all the love, understanding and explaining did little make thing easier
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|to the point that even after all these years they're just barely on 
|speaking terms.  

	Sounds to me like there /wasn't/ much love if she hates them so.


|Some may console themselves with, "if you teach them right they'll understand
|it better", but the truth is (as you can easily see in the increases in anti-
|gay violence) when you try to force teach your minority beliefs or knowingly
|cause your children to endure social ridicule they will more likely react 
|as children do; by rejecting their families, their beleifs and harbour 
|mostly bitterness.

	So, would you rather Gay parents teach their children that their
parents are evil sick people?  I'm sure that will lead to a loving 
relationship.  Yeah, you'd probably rather not have Gays have kids, but
that's not what I'm asking you.


|America must've gone through quite a change the last month and a half.  Since
|Clinton promised a cabinet that "would look more like America," it must be that
|we've all become far left academicians or career politicians.  The ivory tower
|is rebuilt, communism lives and its advocates are working for Bill Clinton! 

	Wah!

Gadson
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:11699 alt.politics.clinton:18668
From: daj20@amdahl.com (Daniel A Jatnieks)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Gays in the Military..what nobody is talking about:
Date: 15 Dec 92 17:29:45 GMT
Distribution: usa

young@ssdd475a.erim.org (Peter Young) writes:

>In article <1992Dec13.222013.25233@anasazi.com> john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore) writes:

>>   Okay, I'll explain  it again (for about the 3rd time in this thread).
>>   Hets need not fear sexual interest by the African American. They
>>   do fear it from gays. I know that some people will say that gays
>>   won't find hets sexually attractive, but that is utter crap, as indicated
>>   by plenty of unfortunate incidents where gays made passes at hets
>>   who responded violently. It DOES happened. It HAS happened. It will
>>   happen again. It is frightening and anger provoking for many young men, and
>>   that is dangerous to military units. 


	We can assume then that it specifically frightens you?

	I agree with Peter Young that this is an irrational fear.  And
	the fact I think it is an irrational fear has nothing to do with
	the fact that gays will make passes at het's and even sometimes
	rape them.

	I wonder if this gives those that are frightened by this a greater
	appreciation for how women feel when confronted with unwanted 
	passes at them or the fear of being raped?  And yet there are
	many women in the military who do want to be there ... hmmm, 
	I guess they have been able to deal with their fears of unwanted
	passes and rape well enough.  I guess men just can't be expected
	to have to be that mature is that it?

	I think you have brought out the most basic reason that 
	motivates many who are against gays in the military, and that
	is simply fear.  As you put it: fear of sexual interest from
	gays, fear of unwanted passes, even fear of rape.  All I can
	say is that the proper way to deal with fear IS NOT to try
	to make it go away; it doesn't work that way.


>I see no difference between an irrational fear of skin color and
>irrational fear of getting fucked in the ass.

>Petyer
>--
>Peter Young
>young@erim.org




danj.
--
dan jatnieks.                      i'll take these opinions if no-one else will.
daj20@ruts.ccc.amdahl.com

Seinfeld, Star Trek TNG, The Simpsons - that's all I need, I don't need anyth...
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:11734 alt.politics.clinton:18724
From: young@ssdd475a.erim.org (Peter Young)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Religious Freedom (Re: Gays in the Military..what nobody is talking about:)Summary:
Date: 16 Dec 92 06:40:07 GMT
	<YOUNG.92Dec14205701@ssdd475a.erim.org>
	<BzBGBA.Fow@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>
Distribution: usa
Organization: Environmental Research Institute of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
In-reply-to: graham@venus.iucf.indiana.edu's message of Tue, 15 Dec 1992 19:40:39 GMT

In article <BzBGBA.Fow@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> graham@venus.iucf.indiana.edu (JIM GRAHAM) writes:

   >>   The argument that it is an "illegal establishment of religion" _because_
   >>   someone who doesn't participate is left out or "ignored" is absurd.  It
   >>   is really stretching the imagination to make this stick.

I agree.  This is an absurd argument.

Are we done now?  Can we go on?
--
Peter Young
young@erim.org
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:11507 alt.politics.clinton:18492 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:10005 alt.politics.bush:14487 alt.politics.homosexuality:7923
From: rlc1028@zeus.tamu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Children in Same-gender Families (Re: Homophobes in the Military...)
Date: 13 Dec 1992 01:05 CST
Organization: Texas A&M University, College Station, TX
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: zeus.tamu.edu

In article <1gdk9fINNm6@hp-col.col.hp.com>, smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes...
|rlc1028@zeus.tamu.edu writes:
|> 
|> 	Incidentally, it is for this purpose that the book "Nancy's Two
|> Mommies", or whatever it's called, was written.  It was for same-gender
|> parents to give to their kids so that the kids have a limited understanding
|> of the nature of some family units.
| 
|Really?  So what's the deal with the school board in NY being dismissed 
|for refusing to use it as part of their first-grade curriculum?  I've been
|given the impression that it is intended also for children of hetrosexual
|families, so they will understand that homosexual families are normal.

	That may well be what it's being used for.  Alls I know is that
it's been on the market in Gay bookstores for a while, marketed for Lesbian 
parents.

	No doubt it could be used to educate any children as to the 
existence of Gay households.

	What's really at issue is the agenda of the Rainbow Programme,
which I don't think authored that book.

Gadson
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:11967 alt.politics.clinton:18914 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:10492 alt.politics.bush:14774
From: tip@lead.aichem.arizona.edu (Tom Perigrin)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: An Apology to Ted
Date: 19 Dec 92 01:12:33 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona UNIX Users Group

In article <1992Dec16.172832.17520@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:

>
>According to recent studies performed here in the Physics Department at 
>the University of Arizona, the overwhelming response of the random, thinking 

[drivel deleted]

Let's see,  Physics...  Oh Yeah, that's the department where the Department
Head had to step down due to (among other things) a sexual harrassment
permission form posted in the Departmental Office...
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:11683 alt.politics.clinton:18647 talk.religion.misc:23872
From: rlc1028@zeus.tamu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Religious Freedom (Re: Gays in the Military..what nobody is talking about:)Summary:
Date: 15 Dec 1992 11:01 CST
Organization: Texas A&M University, College Station, TX
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: zeus.tamu.edu

In article <Bz9JF9.Inu@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>, graham@venus.iucf.indiana.edu writes...
| 
|It works both ways.  One can say "Let's force ALL kids to practice
|some form of religion".  Or, one can say, "Let's force ALL kids to
|not practice ANY form of religion".  The latter is what is happening.

	Let's just say, "Let's not force any kids to practice a religion,
but let them do what they wish without the official sanctioning from the
government or administration."

Gadson
From: green@plains.NoDak.edu (Brad Green)
Subject: Slick and the Military (was Re: antihomosexualism a phobia -- *NOT*!
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 04:42:35 GMT
Organization: North Dakota Higher Education Computing Network

In article <YOUNG.92Dec12145455@ssdd475a.erim.org> young@ssdd475a.erim.org (Peter Young) writes:
>I didn't hear about this.  Clinton loathes the military?  Why wasn't
>more made of this during the campaign?  It was probably the Pinko
>Press.  No, wait, they played up his draft status, so that can't be
>it.  I know!  It was the Rockefeller Brothers!  Right?  Where does
>this quote come from?

It was reported in just about every form of press, just downplayed.  It was in
his letter to Col. Wilson.  He stated he loved America, but loathed the
military.
From: krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: The Real Reason For Universal Health Care
Date: 14 Dec 92 18:47:53 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson AZ

Did you folks read the New York Times article today?  It was the front 
page article here in Tucson.  It exposes the real reason why the Democratic 
Party wants to cover everyone with health insurance.  It is another source 
for taxes!  They want to tax health benefits!  Jeez, how could I have been 
so blinded?  I thought that the Dems were really, honestly concerned about 
the poor on this subject.  Every time I start to believe that Dems are 
actually concerned about the masses, BANG! they reveal their true motives.

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
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:11757 alt.politics.clinton:18759
From: krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Gays in the Military..what nobody is talking about:
Date: 14 Dec 92 18:21:30 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson AZ

In article <grendel.724111459@camelot> grendel@camelot.bradley.edu (Alyosha Bourgea) writes:
>In <1992Dec8.203745.22470@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
>
>>I fall back upon one of my original points.  That when you allow individuals 
>>who may be catagorized as minorities into the military, there will be abuse 
>>of "racism, sexism, homophobia" charges.  This must be curbed.
>
>Nice fallback.  Of course, you didn't address the point in the slightest,
>which was that homosexuality is acceptable because it involves informed
>mutual consent as a general rule.  You changed the subject.  But that's okay.
>Let me ask you a question: when African-Americans were allowed into the
>military, was there abuse of "racism" charges?  I think not.  And I don't
>think the inconvenience of excessive discrimination charges outweighs the
>injustice of actual discriminatory events that go unchecked.  Ignoring the
>problem doesn't make it go away.

Ah!  How fun!  You accuse me of failing to address your point, then you 
ask me a question, then you answer it for me.  Hmm, somehow I feel that 
I should have been involved in that exchange.

Yes, I do feel that racism charges are overused in the military; it's one 
of those situations where real racism gets glossed over because so many 
bogus charges get pursued.

In response to your statement "Ignoring the problem doesn't make it go away."
Legislation rarely (never?) changes peoples attitudes.  At least not right 
away.

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.politics.clinton
From: asper@sbctri.sbc.com (Alan E. Asper)
Subject: Re: Gays in the Military..what nobody is talking about:
Organization: Southwestern Bell Technology Resources, St.Louis, MO
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 92 20:19:56 GMT

>In article <1992Dec10.155115.15000@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> Ted
>Krueger, krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu writes:
>>
>>I disagree.  When gays are having sex on floats in a parade down the 
>>middle of Main Street,  
                          
I think someone reads a little too much Penthouse Forum.

Alan
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:11838 alt.politics.clinton:18822
From: borden@head-cfa.harvard.edu (Dave Borden)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Gays in the Military..what nobody is talking about:
Date: 17 Dec 92 21:48:25 GMT
Reply-To: borden@m5.harvard.edu
Distribution: usa
Organization: Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, Cambridge, MA,  USA

In article <1992Dec17.132151.28379@news.DKRZ-Hamburg.DE> k206027@smog.DKRZ-Hamburg.DE (Bakayaroo Banzai) writes:
>In article <1992Dec16.173213.5672@m5.harvard.edu> borden@m5.harvard.edu writes:
>>
>>Those who don't bathe have the ability to begin bathing; it's their choice.
>>Homosexuals don't have the ability to become heterosexuals.  Your analogy is
>>not valid for that reason.  Your previous analogy between homosexuals and
>>
>This is a very shaky argument IMO and in the opinion of many others. There
>is simply not a great body of non-controversial scientific evidence to back
>up this claim. It's not likely to be proven one way or another in the 
>near future. Your fundamental assertion that gays should not be excluded
>from the military on the basis of their sexual practices is, I think, valid
>but not for the reason you state above. I'm amazed that people continue to
>make this statement as if it were an absolute, fundamental law of the 
>universe. And for the benefit of the Usenet-impaired here i'm NOT talking
>about bathing...:) Your argument stands without having to resort to 
>what is essentially an unprovable assertion.

I regret using the assertion because it could be taken to imply that
homosexuals should become heterosexuals if they can.  A statement with which
I would not agree.  I think that people should choose whatever lifestyle is
most satisfying to them.

The impression I've gotten through conversations (not scientific proof, just
my impression) is that most gays are as firmly gay as most straights are
firmly straight, though perhaps not all.  You're right that it's not central
to the issue, however.  As I've said in a previous post, I don't care if they
choose to be gay or not.  It's not my business.

  - Dave Borden
    borden@m5.harvard.edu
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:11656 alt.politics.clinton:18619
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: 17 Dec 1992 17:18:57 GMT
Organization: Colorado Springs IT Center
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: fajita19.cs.itc.hp.com

rlc1028@zeus.tamu.edu writes:
> 	Well now, since I have not read the book, you'll have to tell me 
> what the "last part" shows.

Oh, I was under the impression from your response that you had been 
following the discussion about the book.  I have not read it, either; 
as it was described to me, the last part is (picture of one man under
the covers and the other turning off the light) "daddy and his roommate
go to sleep together".  

Walter

Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: grendel@camelot.bradley.edu (Alyosha Bourgea)
Subject: Re: Liberals DO oppose First Amendment rights
Organization: Bradley University
Distribution: usa
Date: 13 Dec 92 18:37:02 GMT

In <1992Dec13.151624.12736@porthos.cc.bellcore.com> wgb3@pyuxf.uucp (25336-buoni) writes:

>>So if you don't
>>jive with a photograph of Jesus in a jar of piss, or a finger in a penis,
>>or a little girl exposing herself, 
>      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Only sick bastards (my opinion of course) believe that CHILDREN exposing 
>themselves should be viewed upon as artwork.  That's why I support the NRA,
>so that I can shoot the genitals off of such individuals if ever they dare 
>cast their eyes upon my young children!

You show a rather frightening intolerance for different viewpoints.
When I was a little child, I exposed myself regularly, along with all the
other little children around me.  I didn't think of myself as a sick person,
probably because nobody ever told me to think that way.

>>then do yourself a favor and don't go
>>to the museum that day.  If you wish, write a letter to the editor
>>explaining how much you hate the defamation of Christ in art.  But don't
>>stop people from going and looking at the photographs, or whatever it is,
>>if that's what they want to do.  If it's really bad art, no one will care.

>I agree with your argument.  Let worthless artists create and display their
>worthless trash for the maggots of our society to view with great pleasure,
>so long as that artwork is NOT (no way, no how) subsidized through federal
>or (my) state dollars.  If the artists can't survive peddling their filth
>then let them starve (isn't that what a free market is all about?)!

Agreed.

>Piss on my Lord?
>Go ahead, 
>Feel free,
>Your ass is his for eternity!

My ass is mine, Bill.  Keep your Lord out of my piss.

>Bill Buoni
>My opinions are my own and do not represent the views of my employer!

--
Yosha Bourgea                   "Newspapers screamed for blood...
grendel@camelot.bradley.edu     it was the best of times."
Squid Power                              --Sting

Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:11832 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:10368 alt.politics.clinton:18817 alt.politics.bush:14681 alt.politics.homosexuality:8112