HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rj24@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Robert  Johnston)
Subject: Re: Sexuality
Reply-To: rj24@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Robert  Johnston)
Organization: Columbia University
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 06:24:58 GMT

In article <C03wCz.7K2@NeoSoft.com> jpsb@NeoSoft.com (Jim Shirreffs) writes:
>In article <1992Dec30.194545.8342@asl.dl.nec.com> dillhoff@aslws01.asl.dl.nec.com (Doug Dillhoff) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec30.194703.3067@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov> fogarty@sir-c.jpl.nasa.gov (Tim Fogarty) writes:
>>>
>>>In article <1992Dec30.162502.6756@asl.dl.nec.com>, 
>>>dillhoff@aslws01.asl.dl.nec.com (Doug Dillhoff) writes:
>>>|>
>>>|>Unlike heterosexuality, which is dictated by nature, homosexuality
>>>|>is a lifestyle choice and should not be presented as such to school
>>>|>
>>>
>>>What evidence do you have of this ?  And how do you dismiss the scientific
>>>evidence that suggests otherwise ?  I would really like to know.
>>>
>>
>I'm a little out of date on the science of sexuality, but when I was young
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>the social scientists claimed that one early sexual experiences had an
>inordinate amount of influence on the eventual sexual orientation of an
>indivual. In short if someone as a child had homosexual experiences then
>they were more likely to grow to be a homosexual. Now I don't know if this is
>true, but when I was young it was accepted as scientific fact. Now you are 
>claiming another scientific fact that directly contradicts what I learned.
>Very confusing. Which is fact? Or are they both right and at the same time 
>both wrong? Science is not God, it is our current best guess, let's keep 
>that in mind. My best guess is that the Oilers are going to win the 
>Super Bowl!
>
>jim shirreffs
>
>i speak for myself and only myself

I nominate this for the understatement of the year award.
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:12638 alt.politics.clinton:19354
From: psg+@pitt.edu (Paul S Galvanek)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Sexuality
Date: 31 Dec 92 16:50:50 GMT
Followup-To: alt.rush-limbaugh
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <1992Dec31.062907.6352@microsoft.com> philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
>
>     How useful was that class to gay students?
>

I can't wait to hear the answer to this...

Useful in what way Phil?

PSG

Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: fogarty@sir-c.jpl.nasa.gov (Tim Fogarty)
Subject: Re: Bisexuality (was Re: [a long list of subjects])
Organization: JPL, Space Imaging Radar Software Group
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 00:03:23 GMT


In article <1ht9o8INN7iv@hp-col.col.hp.com>, smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes:
|>
|>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.  
|>

Please, please, oh please do keep in mind the difference between 
sexual ORIENTATION and sexual BEHAVIOR.

It IS possible to be a bisexual in orientation and be monogomous in behavior.

It IS possible to be a homosexual and a virgin.  If you currently are a
heterosexual and are not a virgin, were you not also a heterosexual prior to
your first sexual encounter.

And as a homosexual, I do not practice homosexuality any more than 
I practice whiteness.

--
Tim Fogarty
Sys Man and Sys Admin for the EGSE in the POCC at JSC for SRL-1, STS-59
FOGARTY@SIR-C.JPL.NASA.GOV
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: casivils@lescsse.jsc.nasa.gov (craig sivils)
Subject: Re: antihomosexualism a phobia -- *NOT*! -- *NOT*!
Organization: Lockheed Engineering and Sciences
Date: 21 Dec 92 22:29:39 GMT

In <Jym.18Dec1992.1224@naughty-peahen> Jym Dyer <jym@mica.berkeley.edu> writes:

>> I think Jeff has made one of the most reasoned statements
>> lately about the stand most "normal" people take.  We don't
>> "fear" homosexuals, we don't "hate" homosexuals, we just feel
>> homosexuality is wrong.

>=\= Technically speaking, a phobia isn't necessarily fear, it
>is an irrational aversion to something.  This often manifests
>itself as fear and as hatred.

often=always?  Isn't one of the basic concepts here that we shouldn't
make sweeping generalizations about groups of people.

>=\= But homophobia also includes "just feeling that it's wrong,"
>if such is irrational.  And what could be rational about an
>aversion to something that's none of your business and doesn't
>involve you?

LOGIC FLAW!!!!!!
Is this the new scale for morality?  If it doesn't effect you then you
have no right do decide if it is right or wrong?  Then any successful murder
can't be wrong because the killer did it and the victim is gone.  (Yes, the
example is extreme but the fundamental logic is the same, this is my life and
you should accept anything that I decide to do for myself).  

>=\= I can understand such an aversion out of ignorance, since
>ignorance on this issue is so abundant.  But to maintain the
>aversion in the face of facts that don't support it -- well,
>that's irrational.  Phobic, in fact.
>    <_Jym_>


You use the word irrational several times, the argument seems irrational to me,
why don't you do more than throw smoke, what are the "FACTS"????
I may be so irrational as to take the bible at face value and when it says
that homosexuality is wrong, thats enough for me.  Now, please tell me what
phobia it is, to group me into a general group and make condescending and border
line rude remarks about my group just on the basis of my religion.

                                    Craig
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: dostalik@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Bill Dostalik)
Subject: Re: antihomosexualism a phobia -- *NOT*! -- *NOT*!
Organization: TI Semiconductor Process and Design Center
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 22:12:29 GMT

In article <casivils.724976979@node_508ba> casivils@lescsse.jsc.nasa.gov (craig sivils) writes:
>In <Jym.18Dec1992.1224@naughty-peahen> Jym Dyer <jym@mica.berkeley.edu> writes:
>
>>> I think Jeff has made one of the most reasoned statements
>>> lately about the stand most "normal" people take.  We don't
>>> "fear" homosexuals, we don't "hate" homosexuals, we just feel
>>> homosexuality is wrong.
>
>>=\= Technically speaking, a phobia isn't necessarily fear, it
>>is an irrational aversion to something.  This often manifests
>>itself as fear and as hatred.
>>=\= But homophobia also includes "just feeling that it's wrong,"
>>if such is irrational.  And what could be rational about an
>>aversion to something that's none of your business and doesn't
>>involve you?
>
>LOGIC FLAW!!!!!!
>Is this the new scale for morality?  If it doesn't effect you then you
>have no right do decide if it is right or wrong?  Then any successful murder
>can't be wrong because the killer did it and the victim is gone.  (Yes, the
>example is extreme but the fundamental logic is the same, this is my life and
>you should accept anything that I decide to do for myself).  

On the money, my friend.  Another extreme example: the starvation in Somalia
doesn't affect me, and the warlords activities are none of my business, but
I support intervention:  therefore I am warlordaphobic?

>>=\= I can understand such an aversion out of ignorance, since
>>ignorance on this issue is so abundant.  But to maintain the
>>aversion in the face of facts that don't support it -- well,
>>that's irrational.  Phobic, in fact.
>>    <_Jym_>

Hmm...  Christophobia?   or perhaps more generally, Judeo-Christophobia?

>                                    Craig

-  Bill      Go Sooners!
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:12517 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:10938 alt.politics.clinton:19258 alt.politics.bush:15095 alt.politics.homosexuality:8586
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 22:03:05 GMT
Organization: Colorado Springs IT Center
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: fajita19.cs.itc.hp.com

john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore) writes:
> Do you propose the end of all government aid to those who attend
> private universities? Religious universities?

No, I was only referring to elementary-high school. 

Walter

Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: howard@netcom.com (Howard Berkey)
Subject: Re: Lifestyle Choices and Secular Reasoning 
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 23:57:27 GMT

In article <C07oBz.F74@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (kellmeyer steven l) writes:
>ecl@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (Evelyn C. Leeper) writes:
>
>>In article <1992Dec30.162502.6756@asl.dl.nec.com> dillhoff@aslws01.asl.dl.nec.com (Doug Dillhoff) writes:
>>> In article <1992Dec29.233922.2539@netcom.com> harp@netcom.com (Gregory O. Harp) writes:
>>> 
>>All people are asking is that unless you can come up with some
>>*secular* reason for why their lifestyle choice is bad, you grant
>>them the same rights they are willing to grant you: the right to
>>live their life without persecution.
>
>Why is *secular* reasoning superior to religious reasoning? 
>

Because not everyone gives a damn about religion.  The majority of the
world population isn't Christian.  (Although Catholicism is the
largest single religion).  Besides, 'religious reasoning' sounds like
an oxymoron.  

Andrew Jackson had a lot to say about avoiding religious arguments
pertaining to legislation.

> [loads of opinionated attacks on secular reasoning deleted]

Look, whatever your opinion of secular reasoning, religiously
justified 'reasoning' has a pretty poor history as well.  The Catholic
church is responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths alone.  Look
at Hezbollah for a good example of religious 'reasoning'.

-Howard


-- 
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Howard Berkey                       			   howard@netcom.com
Did you hear about the dyslexic devil worshipper?
He sold his soul to Santa.				-Herb Caen
... .. ...   ... .. ...   ... .. ...    ... .. ...   ... .. ...   ... .. ...
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:12273 alt.politics.clinton:19107 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:10701 alt.politics.bush:14923
From: tip@lead.aichem.arizona.edu (Tom Perigrin)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Pot-Kettle-Black (was Re: Homophobes in the Military..)
Date: 25 Dec 92 01:13:22 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Arizona UNIX Users Group

In article <1992Dec22.180112.14151@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
>More proof that lefties who run out of arguments resort to personal 
>attacks:
>

[my satire on Rush Limbaugh, and the fundie update deleted]

Thanks Ted!!! I was afraid you were going to see through the trap, but I guess
I needn't have worried.

Ted,  YOU are the person who says that biting comments are okay as long as they
are jokes.  YOU are the person who derides people who object to nasty horrible
things that Rush says in jokes.  YOU are the person who abhores PC.

Well, a lot of people find personal attacks in jokes to be offensive, JUST LIKE
YOU DID!  Making fun of a person, of a person's ethnic background, or sexual
background can be highly offensive.

So the next time you want to put down somebody for being oversensitive and
call them "PC", just remember how much you hate it when Fundamentalist
Christians and Ted Krueger are attacked in jokes.

Remove the beam from your eye, before you complain about the mote in
another persons eye.

Stop hiding your hypocrisy behind God and Jesus.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: dbernard@clesun.Central.Sun.COM (Dave Bernard)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Secular Humanism a Religion? (was:JESUS IS THE REASON FOR THE
Date: 30 Dec 1992 14:31:16 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems
Distribution: world
Reply-To: dbernard@clesun.Central.Sun.COM
NNTP-Posting-Host: clesun.central.sun.com

In article 8130@uswmrg.mrg.uswest.com.mrg.uswest.com, greg_bradt@msmgate.mrg.uswest.com (Greg Bradt) writes:
>In article <1hq0boINNgqm@cronkite.Central.Sun.COM> Dave Bernard,
>dbernard@clesun.Central.Sun.COM writes:
>>Note that Secular Humanism has been recognized as a religion
>>by the US Supreme Court.
>
>What an absurd idea!   Just how did this "recognition" come about?
>
>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".



In 1964, I believe, a conscientious objector to the draft protested that,
on religious grounds, he should receive an exemption.  His stated religion
was "Secular Humanist," and the case was taken to the US Supreme Court, which
recognized this as a religion.

	Dave
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org (Mike A. McAngus)
Subject: Re: Lifestyle Choices (was  Re: Sexuality)
Organization: Homebrew Virtual Reality Labs
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 01 Jan 1993 22:20:40 GMT

[alt.politics.bush and alt.politics.clinton crossposts deleted]

Brian Douglass (briand@anasazi.com) wrote:
: In article <1992Dec31.043531.4304@microsoft.com> philipla@microsoft.com (Phil
 Lafornara) writes:
: >In article <1992Dec30.191743.7958@asl.dl.nec.com> dillhoff@aslws01.asl.dl.ne
c.com (Doug Dillhoff) writes:
: >>In article <1992Dec30.185545.26789@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> ecl@cbnewsj.cb.att.c
om (Evelyn C. Leeper) writes:
: >>>
: >>>Since homosexuality is found in *every* mammalian species, the
: >>>statement that it is a lifestyle choice is scientifically questionable,
: >>>but if it is, so what?  Christianity, meat-eating, and monogamous
: >>>marriage are not dictated by nature--they are all lifestyle choices.
: >>
: >>So, will I get special rights if I am a meat eater?
: >
: >     Let's look at it from a different angle:  Should it be illegal
: >for people to eat vegetables, simply because you are a meat eater?
: >Should employers be able to fire vegetarians for not eating meat?
: >Should school children be taught that vegetarians are abnormal?
:
: And must we have a law to prevent each and every one of these incidents of
: descrimination?  As I pointed out before, Smokers have been fired for
: smoking on their own time, at home, in their car, etc.  If employers can
: get away with that (some have, some haven't), can Hormel firing vegetarians
: be far behind?

As you also pointed out, anti-discrimination suits have been filed.  Some of 
the smokers won their suits and others are pending (your statments not mine).
So, by your own admission, employers are not "get[ting] away with that."

:
: I repeat, can't we just have one law that forbids discriminating against
: anything other than appropriate job qualifications?  I mean some companies
: still get away with forbidding employees to have mustaches!  Do we also
: need a law to stop that?  Where oh where does it end?

Go for it.  Write it up.  Submit a petition on this these boards.  Get people 
to email their acceptance (or snail mail if signatures are required).
-- 
Mike McAngus                    |You are a fluke of the Universe.  You have no 
mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org            |right to be here, and whether you can hear it
The Truth is still the Truth    |or not the Universe is laughing behind your 
Even if you choose to ignore it.|back.  -- National Lampoon, Deteriorata
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Subject: Re: Education Regarding Alternative Family Units (Re: The Analogy Betwixt Gays & Blacks (Re: Children in Same-gender Families))
Reply-To: john@anasazi.com
Organization: Anasazi, Inc.  Phoenix, Arizona USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 04:38:13 GMT

Keywords: 

In article <1992Dec30.001921.11011@Princeton.EDU> elliott@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Jr. Frank W. Elliott) writes:
]In article <1hqmklINN24o@hp-col.col.hp.com> smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes:
]>> Fine....then I shouldn't be paying taxes for something that says I 
]>> am wrong.  
]>
]>If the folks who submitted the school voucher amendment get their way, 
]>you might not have to...then again, the public school system may go 
]>furthur in the toilet...

Hmmm... considering that the higher education system in the US is
one of the best in the world, and we have had "vouchers" (federal loans,
GI bill, etc) for religious schools there for 45 years, I think
you are perhaps exaggerating a tad.

Do you propose the end of all government aid to those who attend
private universities? Religious universities?

]Do you seriously think that the voucher system will allow people
]without children to stop paying taxes to support public schools?

Hell no, that is not the point.

-- 
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.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexual
From: stank@perrault.unet.com (Stan Knight)
Subject: Re: Showering in the Military (Re: Gays in the Military..what nobody
Organization: Network Equipment Technologies, Redwood City
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 22:54:48 GMT

In article <1992Dec30.205049.18175@anasazi.com> briand@anasazi.com (Brian Douglass) writes:
>>Just as a point of clarification, Clinton can change or establish an
>>executive order to allow homosexuals in the military, he cannot as
>>easily change some of the laws which apply to the code of conduct of
>>persons in the military.

Not true. As Commander and Chief he gets to make up any rules he wants. Don't
confuse the military with a democracy.

>So, to follow this, an executive order could allow homosexuals in to the
>military, but homosexual behavior (sodomy, oral copulation) will still get
>them brought up on charges.  

This is correct. Gays and hets in the military will have to follow the same
rules.

>Question, where is the line draw on these charges betwen base activity and 
>off-base activity?  That is if sodomy or oral copulation take place off-base, 
>does the military have jurisdiction.

The military makes no distinction between on and off base activities corcerning
sexual activities. If caught in an outlawed sex act ANYWHERE,(even with your
own spouse)as long as you still belong to the military, you are possibly in 
alot of trouble. Needless to say that it would be much harder to actually catch
someone "in the act" if they were off-base.

Stan Knight
|The 3 ways--Right way, Wrong way, Military way|
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:12787 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:11206 alt.politics.clinton:19454 alt.politics.bush:15352 alt.politics.homosexuality:8793
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 17:04 CST
Organization: Texas A&M University, College Station, TX
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: zeus.tamu.edu

In article <1992Dec29.184740.20472@lclark.edu>, snodgras@lclark.edu (Bil Snodgrass) writes...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
|I feel that if sex education is to be taught in school it should be optional
|and it must include homosexuality as an equal sexuality.  I do feel that
|all school should be required to have Counsoling for 'sexuality confused'
|students.  I am tired of the suicides of Gay teens in this country.
| 
|And of course you feel the same way about pray in school activities?
|You must respect other's values in the school also, the Jew, the Hindu and so
|on.  I mean I pray all the time at work, even on work time.....
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

	I have an idea.  If voluntary prayer is okay in school, certainly
voluntary sex-ed and homosex-ed is, right?

     ____                _
    /    )               /          
   /    /               /       
  (____/   ___     ___ /   ___,    ___   ,___ 
__    /   ____)   /   /   (__     /   )  /   )
 /   /   /   /   /   /       )   /   /  /   /     
(___/   (___(_  (___(_  (___/   (___/  /   (__    


Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: teddybur@netcom.com (John Sanger)
Subject: Re: Lifestyle Choices (was  Re: Sexuality)
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 06:51:55 GMT

In article <1992Dec31.204741.11263@anasazi.com> briand@anasazi.com (Brian Douglass) writes:
>In article <C03vn5.77K@NeoSoft.com> jpsb@NeoSoft.com (Jim Shirreffs) writes:
>> >Since homosexuality is found in *every* mammalian species, the
>> >statement that it is a lifestyle choice is scientifically questionable,
>> >but if it is, so what?  Christianity, meat-eating, and monogamous
>> >marriage are not dictated by nature--they are all lifestyle choices.
>> 
>>I don't know who wrote this but a lot of folks are taking it at face
>>value, I would like to this statement supported. I for one do not
>>believe it.  *every*  I think not.
>
>Yeah, like how about whales, especially Blues, Sperm Whales, Dolphins,
>Porpoises, etc.  I do know that lesbian activity has been observed in many
>apes (Bonobos), and monkeys (Rhesuss), what about male homosexual activity?
>I don't ever remember hearing about that.  
>

It has been widely observed that the Sea Otter demonstrates such behavior.
I was at the San Diego Sea World Sea Otter exhibit and observed along with
about 40 other people, the servivors of the Exxon Valdiz disaster freely
performing felatio on each other while floating around on their backs in
their tank.



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

Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh