HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: merlyn@digibd.digibd.com (Merlyn LeRoy)
Subject: Re: Religious Freedom (Re: Gays in the Military..what nobody is talking about:)Summary:
Organization: DigiBoard, Incorporated, Eden Prairie,MN
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 22:27:47 GMT

graham@venus.iucf.indiana.edu (JIM GRAHAM) writes:
>One of the arguments against voluntary prayer that I hear over and over
>from the left is that those who do not participate may feel "left out"
>and therefore feel "ostracized" or somehow "inferior".  Poor babies.

Actually, it's a violation of the establishment clause; it isn't illegal
to be "left out" of things, but it IS illegal for schools to promote
a religion.  Students can pray, but it isn't the state's business to
encourage or discourage such.  Why should the state do either of these?

>This is pure CRAP and as hypocritical as you can get.

No, I've seen worse.

[sports examples deleted]
>"Ah, but Jim, Jim, Jim" you say, shaking your head from side to side,
>"There is no constitutional separation of sports and state".

Your anaolgy is flawed, since it was based on your "feeling left out"
theory, which is wrong.

>Bullcrap.  This whole prayer thing has little or nothing to do with
>separation of church and state, and everything to do with the fact that
>the left is _afraid_ of anything which even hints of "values".

Sorry, you're the one full of it.  Court rulings on this are always
based on the first amendment.  Telling schoolchildren that THESE children
over here can pray to the Christian god[TM] with the teacher, while THOSE
children over there get ignored, is an illegal establishment of religion.

>>|...A blind, grade-school girl was quietly praying her rosary 
>>|beads on the school bus.  The bus driver took them away and the school 
>>|forbade her from praying the rosary (even quietly) in public.

>>	Unfortunate.  And as far as I am concerned, the girl should not 
>>have been prevented from doing her chants.

>Sounds to me like that bus-driver needs a little "sensitivity training".

Sounds to me like the bus driver knows as much about S.C. rulings on
the freedom of religion of schoolchildren as you do.  Have you ever
heard that some of the old "school prayers" children were required to
pray were explicitly anti-Catholic?  Had a first-person article about that
in soc.religion.christian (or talk.religion.misc, I forget) a couple of
years ago; the poster said even though he was a Christian, he was opposed
to prayer in school because his sister was forced to say anti-Catholic
prayers by her (supposedly "Christian") teacher.

---
Merlyn LeRoy
From: krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: thEwIndBag against Motor Votor Bill
Date: 11 Dec 92 20:21:06 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson AZ

In article <1992Dec11.192834.5574@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
>In article <1992Dec8.233652.24815@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
>>Oh come on.  That's not what I meant, and you know it. (At least I hope you 
>>do.)  People should have the right to decide if they want to be registered 
>>to vote.  They should not be forced to register just because they want a 
>>driver's license.
>
>	Ted Krueger, you are a big baby. I haven't seen the Motor
>Voter legislation myself, but I think that it could easily be modified
>to make registration optional, if that was not already part of the
>bill.
>-- 
>/Loren Petrich, the Master Blaster
>/lip@s1.gov

Whah!  Whah!  And I thought I was simply passing on information that 
you guys lacked!  Boy, how wrong I was.  You folks must not care about 
facts.  Of course the bill could be easily modified.  Use your brain.  
What possible reason could they have for not already modifying it.  They 
do not want registration to be optional.  Cheez Whiz!

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:11476 alt.politics.clinton:18467 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:9980 alt.politics.bush:14462 alt.politics.homosexuality:7892
From: rlc1028@zeus.tamu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Children in Same-gender Families (Re: Homophobes in the Military...)
Date: 12 Dec 1992 13:44 CST
Organization: Texas A&M University, College Station, TX
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: zeus.tamu.edu

In article <1992Dec12.152046.4002@den.mmc.com>, sims@possum.den.mmc.com (John Sims) writes...

|Hold on a minute!  A person earlier made the assertion that small
|children have no problem with same sex parents.  They seemed to be
|claiming that the big bad adults were indoctrinating children to be
|prejudiced against gays, and that this was not an innate prejudice, and
|offered some sort of "proof" effect.  I was merely stating that my
|daughter, without having been exposed to the subject previously, at
|least not by us, thought same sex parents were weird.  I didn't prompt
|her to say it.

	John, I think that the original poster was simply stating that
children, as well as adults, will say that anything they are not familiar
with is weird.  That's human nature.  I assume your daughter had never 
been aware of a same-gender parent family.  If I were your daughter, I
too would have said that the idea soudned weird.

|Do you really believe that children in same sex marriages are going to
|think they're in a "normal" situation when they ask mom/dad where they
|came from? 

	It depends entirely on what they are taught.  If they are taught 
that some families involve parents of the opposite gender, and that some
involve parents of the same gender, then /that/ is what they will expect as
"normal".

	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.

Gadson Sandor
rlc1028@zeus.tamu.edu
Organization: Materials Science and Engineering, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 10:37:35 -0500 
From: James William Stepanek <js43+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: An Apology to Ted

>Ted, in the past I have named you The Asshole, and I do now humbly
>apologize for that.  An asshole becomes such with a will,
>intentionally.  After reading more of the corpus of your posts, I can
>see that this is clearly not true of you.  You truly can't help it.
I believe that this is what was meant by the classic cliche "the pot
calling the kettle black".
> 
>I am sorry.
> 
>Peter
>--
>Peter Young
>young@erim.org
Yes here we have the master of nettiquette and all around good guy, just
because he calls you an asshole because you don't agree it doesn't
matter, he can forgive you for it being compulsory.
James Stepanek
esp
Graduate Student 
Department of Materials Science and Engineering
University of Pittsburgh
Disclaimer : If Pitt knew I still used my CMU account they probably
wouldn't understand. 

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: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 00:27:19 GMT

Keywords: 

In article <1992Dec20.210733.7174@seq.uncwil.edu> session@seq.uncwil.edu (Zack C. Sessions) writes:
]john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore) writes:
]
]>But of course if the military allows openly gay soldiers, then you would,
]>wouldn't you? Isn't that what we are talking about - allowing openly
]>gay soldiers?
]
]That may be what YOU are talking about, but it isn't what Clinton has 
]been talking about. There is a difference between allowing a person
]to join the military and not making him or her swear that they are NOT
]gay and allowing them to join and forcing them to be out and in the
]open about their homosexuality.

And what happens if they are openly gay? I'll betcha Clinton's
policy doesn't then discharge them. Let's face it, Zack,
the policy of admitting gays is, in today's climate, equivalent to
admitting gays who are public about their preferences.

-- 
John Moore NJ7E, 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253  (602-951-9326)
john@anasazi.com ncar!noao!asuvax!anasaz!john anasaz!john@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
 - - Support ALL of the bill of rights, INCLUDING the 2nd amendment! - -
 - - Clinton: "Read my lips: We will bring utopia, at no cost to you!" - -
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: rlc1028@zeus.tamu.edu  
Subject: Re: The Analogy Betwixt Gays & Blacks (Re: Children in Same-gender Families)
Organization: EUnet EDV-Dienstleistungsgesellschaft m.b.H
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 05:28:00 GMT

In article <1gnskcINN6ac@hp-col.col.hp.com>, smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes...
| 
|What *is* the position of homosexuals and the gay-rights movement? 
|If there is such a correlation between blacks and gays, should gays 
|have minority status?  Should they have quotas?  Why/why not?  If not,
|why should blacks have it, and gays not? 

	I believe that quota systems are inherently discriminatory.
They amount to reverse discrimination.  I do not believe in quotas
for Blacks or Gays or anyone else.  And, yes, I am Gay.

Gadson
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.space,sci.space
From: session@seq.uncwil.edu (Zack C. Sessions)
Subject: Re: Breeder reactors (was Re: Justification for the Space Program
Organization: Univ. of North Carolina @ Wilmington
Distribution: usa, world
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1992 04:48:36 GMT

bboerner@novell.com (Brendan B. Boerner) writes:

>Speaking of breeder reactors, why doesn't the U.S. have more of
>them?

Because they're too damn dangerous.

-- 
Zack Sessions
sessions@seq.uncwil.edu
University of North Carolina at Wilmington (Alumnus)
"Good health is merely the slowest form of dying."
From: jhb@calmasd.prime.com (Jim Bishop)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Gays in the Military..what nobody is talking about:
Date: 19 Dec 92 18:27:52 GMT
Organization: -

In article <1992Dec16.225327.21440@galileo.physics.arizona.edu>, 
krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) barks:
> In article <1992Dec16.141432.7151@uswmrg.mrg.uswest.com.mrg.uswest.com> you write:
>>In article <1992Dec10.155115.15000@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> Ted
>>Krueger, krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu writes:
>>> I wrote:
>>>>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).
>>
>>Your fantasy life is really running away with you, Ted!  Seeing people
>>having sex in a parade, now, are we?
>  
> Are you disputing this fact?  

No, just that you know what you are talking about.

> This actually happened in San Francisco,  

San Franscisco doesn't have a main street.

> last summer I believe.  

Anyone who could manage to keep a sex act going with 1000s of
onlookers in 3 hour long parade deserves a float.  

Even if it did occur it was just an extreme case of exhibitionism,
hardly a political action.

> And no, I did not see this myself, but it was  
> reported in the media. 

Ted, I thought you didn't believe anything the media says?

Jim
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush
From: greg_bradt@msmgate.mrg.uswest.com (Greg Bradt)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Gays in the Military..what nobody is talking about:
Date: 11 Dec 92 18:31:26 GMT
Organization: US West Marketing Resources
XUserAgent: Nuntius v1.1b3
NntpPostingHost: greg_bradt.mrg.uswest.com

In article <1992Dec8.232119.24317@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> Ted Krueger,
krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu writes:
>>You are flat wrong.  Homosexuals do not choose to be homosexual any more
>>than you choose to be heterosexual.  
>
>I have heard this claim bandied about as gospel for too long without 
>substantiation.  Either provide evidence that is substantial (and I'm 
>not talking about the ambiguous stuff that has been strewn around), or 
>shut up.

OK, how about the fact the the major psychiatric associations have come to
agree that homosexuality is a "condition" not a "disease" or "illness."

This conclusion is based on scientific research and study.  For example,
there was a recent study of identical twins separated at birth.  In most
cases where one twin was homosexual, the other tended to be also.

This and other studies have brought the scientific community into
substancial agreement on the issue.

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: psb@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (Jr Phillip S Buckland)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: The Ultimate Hypocrisy
Date: 17 Dec 1992 08:49:23 -0600
Organization: Kansas State University
NNTP-Posting-Host: matt.ksu.ksu.edu

sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:


>I never said that you couldn't speak for yourself, Buckland.  Some of
>us are glad that you ran away from talk.abortion.  I, for one, don't
>miss little jewels from you like "Let's look at it from the rapist's
>point of view."

	"Ran away"?  "Little jewels"?  I suppose you have a reference for
	that supposed jewel?

>I'm asking Beth for her source.  I'm sure that she has a real reference,
>not just "somebody told me so it must be true."

	Beth has a "real" reference, but Buckland does not?  I have
	references for a great many things, Ms. Garvin, just not for
	that particular item.

	Your attitude stinks, Ms. Garvin.


We read the world wrong		| Phil Buckland
and say that it deceives us.	| psb@eece.ksu.edu
Tagore, from Stray Birds	| psb@matt.ksu.ksu.edu
From: cd651@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Wally L. Blume)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Homophobe: A definition please!
Date: 17 Dec 1992 14:34:32 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: cd651@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Wally L. Blume)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


  Ever since this gays in the military thing got started and the people
of Colorado voted their opinion regarding proposition 2 I've heard liberals
calling people homophobes. Please define this term for me as I have failed
to find it after searching through 2000+ pages of the Webster's Unabridged
Dictionary. It would seem (taken from the context in which it is normally) 
used that it is a term used to describe a person who dislikes homosexuals. 
  If the word is broken down into it's two Latin based parts HOMO- and
-PHOBE you get a different meaning all together.
          HOMO- Of the same (sex in this instance).
        -PHOBE  A person with an irrational fear of.  
-OR- A person with an irrational fear of someone of the same sex.
Somehow I don't think this is the meaning trying to be expressed here.
Some liberal news reporter probably coined the term (not bothering to 
determine its actual meaning) then all the little liberals followed along
blindly. In the future please use some intelligence in your name calling.
                ------ Insert Flame Here -------
-- 
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
   /   / __  /  /     |         Wally Blume         | Earth:
  /   / _ / /  / /_/  |      Internet address:      |    Mostly harmless.     
 /_/_/ /_/ /  / __/   | cd651@cleveland.freenet.edu |-HH Guide to the Galaxy
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:11798 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:10298 alt.politics.clinton:18797 alt.politics.bush:14653 alt.politics.homosexuality:8079
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 14:17:05 GMT
Organization: Colorado Springs IT Center
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: fajita19.cs.itc.hp.com

rlc1028@zeus.tamu.edu   writes:
> 	Why do you feel it necessary to portray families as based on
> the specific sexual practises?  Isn't it sufficient simply to show families
> as based on gender differences (or similarities) alone?  In other words,
> showing a family with two male parents doesn't even bring into question
> the activities in the bedroom.  And I think that's where alternative
> family education in schools should end.

Actually, I agree.  If the book showed "cooking in the kitchen, playing 
ball in the park", etc, and skipped the last part, it would do just 
that.  What might be even better would be showing a couple of families 
of mixed and same gender doing things together, etc.  

Walter Smith
smithw@cs.itc.hp.com

Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: young@ssdd475a.erim.org (Peter Young)
Subject: Re: JESUS IS THE REASON FOR THE SEASON
In-reply-to: dbernard@clesun.Central.Sun.COM's message of 11 Dec 92 22:35:04 GMT
Organization: Environmental Research Institute of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
Date: 12 Dec 92 13:13:14

In article <14001@texsun.Central.Sun.COM> dbernard@clesun.Central.Sun.COM (Dave Bernard) writes:

>   daj20@amdahl.com (Daniel A Jatnieks) writes:


>	   >you seem to be advocating government participation in a religious
>	   >holiday (beyond recognizing it as a holiday).

>	   >and your reasoning is that it makes economic sense?

>   I'm not advocating such government participation, but recognizing that the
>   government already participates, if by no other means than by reaping the
>   economic benefits.  Kind of two-faced.  If Christmas celebration is indeed
>   a religious holiday, all gift-giving, gift-selling, and so on, should be
>   100% tax free.

Dave, I think I understand your point.  However, the state is making
no law respecting the establishement or restricting the free exercise
thereof when taxing K-Mart, a commercial, non-religious corporation.
I don't understand your claim that because advertising promoting the
Chritsmas holiday appears on TV and radio, this means that the
government in some way sponsors Christmas.  The government taxes
business profits without regard for the reason that the business made
the profit.

>	   >oh and you do mis-state the reason the government stays out of
>	   >Christmas - it's not because it's a "Christian symbol", it's
>	   >because it's a *religous* symbol.

>   I disagree; as long as the symbol is acceptable to the religion of Secular Humanism,
>   it is OK; if it has Christian trappings whatsoever, the ACLU steps in.  It is not
>   religion per se that the government bans.

Would you elaborate on the symbols of the religion of Secular
Humanism?  I have seen various forms of crucifixes for Christian
symbols, the Star of David for a Jewish symbol, and a crescent (I
think) for Muslims, but I am unfamiliar with the Secular Humanists'
symbol.  If it is there, I will alert my local ACLU chapter to bring
procedings to have it removed.  I don't accept any establishment as
being valid.  

Contrary to the beliefs of many, the ACLU is not a liberal
organization.  They have been primary in securing rights for Nazis,
KKK, and several of the less popular religions.  The reason they may
appear liberal is that they do challenge long held practices that
should not be permitted under our constitution, generally contrary to
those who wish to conserve those practices.  Hence, anti-conservative
leads to liberal.

Peter
--
Peter Young
young@erim.org
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:11623 alt.politics.clinton:18599 alt.politics.bush:14552 alt.politics.homosexuality:7977 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:10102
From: owen@autodesk.com (D. Owen Rowley)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Showering in the Military (Re: Gays in the Military..what nobody is talking about:)
Date: 14 Dec 92 22:15:01 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.homosexuality
Distribution: usa

In article <11DEC199211232238@zeus.tamu.edu>, rlc1028@zeus.tamu.edu writes:
> In article <1992Dec8.232542.24540@galileo.physics.arizona.edu>, krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes...
> | 
> |Good.  You conceed that homosexual males would probably act and react just 
> |as heterosexual males.  This means that homosexual males would get extremely 
> |turned on by the sight of nude men, just as heterosexual males would get 
> |extremely turned on by the sight of nude women. Or are you perhaps admitting 
> |that homosexual men are different than heterosexual men in ways other than 
> |sexual interest?

> 	I think your argument is flawed from the assumption that Hetero
> men would get "turned on" if they had to shower in barracks with women.

I think that his assumption is that since he gets turned on by the fantasy
of showering in a communal situation he would get turned on by the reality
of it.

The reality is that Nudist camps around the world dis-prove this fantasy.

> 	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.

For one thing, communal showering in the military is pretty analogous to the
kind of communal showering you encounter in a colege dormitory, or
other shared living situation. Only in training phase do you have 
mass-showering of the kind where everyone is in there at the same time.
In those cases the recruits are much too busy being harrased by their
DI's to worry about being harrased by the guy at the next shower head.

I think this *shower* thread reflects a lot of fantasy thinking.

> 	What about you?  Have you ever showered "public" with the gender
> to which you're attracted?  

all the time.

LUX ./. owen

--
D. Owen Rowley {uunet,fernwood,sun}!autodesk!owen

  " It will be a cold March 17th that I celebrate the imposition of
	Romes rule, on Pagan Ireland. Erin go ppphhhhhttttttt! "
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush
From: young@ssdd475a.erim.org (Peter Young)
Subject: An Apology to Ted
In-reply-to: krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu's message of 10 Dec 92 20:55:04 GMT
Organization: Environmental Research Institute of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
	<1992Dec9.010710.13283@aio.jsc.nasa.gov>
	<1992Dec9.041959.26028@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>
	<1992Dec10.205504.18894@galileo.physics.arizona.edu>
Distribution: world, na, usa
Date: 14 Dec 92 12:36:19

Ted, in the past I have named you The Asshole, and I do now humbly
apologize for that.  An asshole becomes such with a will,
intentionally.  After reading more of the corpus of your posts, I can
see that this is clearly not true of you.  You truly can't help it.

I am sorry.

Peter
--
Peter Young
young@erim.org
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton