HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org (Mike A. McAngus)
Subject: Re: Education Regarding Alternative Family Units (Re: The Analogy Be
Organization: Homebrew Virtual Reality Labs
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 04:46:54 GMT

David L. Hanson (dlhanson@nap.amoco.com) wrote:
: "Blessed are you when they revile and persecute you, and say all kinds of
: evil against you falsely for My sake.  Rejoice and be glad, for great is
: your reward in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before
: you."  Matthew 5:11-12
:
: Thank you for all the blessing, Mr. Barwell; you alone have greatly
: increased my rewards in heaven.
:
:
:
:
: ============================================================================
: David L. Hanson
: Naperville, IL
:
: "He that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God
:  abideth on him." John 3:36

Hey everyone, be a jerk.  Since no-one likes a jerk, you'll be sure to get to
heaven.

(how do people get all those cross posts to take.  Am I the only one using 
tin?)
-- 
Mike McAngus 			 | As if I needed Another time consuming hobby.
(mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org)		 | 
The Truth is still the Truth	 | This Post exploits illiterates.
Even if you choose to ignore it. | 
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Kicked out of a.f.d-q?  I don't think so
Organization: North Carolina State University
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 26 Dec 1992 20:24:39 GMT

I wonder, does Susan Garvin's idea of 'free speech' mean
that people can send e-mail to Steve Chaney's system
administrators accusing Mr. Chaney of 'forgery', when
in fact the 'forgery' was merely a harmless joke?  
 
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: harp@netcom.com (Gregory O. Harp)
Subject: Re: Sexuality
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 10:53:46 GMT

smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes:

>fritzs@microsoft.com (Fritz Sands) writes:
>> First, the country was not founded on Christian values -- it was deliberately
>> set up as a secular society, in order to not have the religious wars
>> and persecutions common in Europe.

>Partially right; it was set up to not have a state church, but it 
>was also largely based on what can be called 'Christian values'.

Please tell us exactly what parts of the Constitution of the United
States contain values unique to Christians.
-- 
-----------------Greg-Harp----------------harp@netcom.com------------------
  "I think I've reached that point / Where every word that you write /
  Of every blood dark sea / And every soul black night / And every dream
  you dream me in / And every perfect free from sin / And burning eyes /
  And hearts on fire / Are just the same old song" -- The Cure
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara)
Subject: Re: Sexuality
Date: 01 Jan 93 09:08:13 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation
Distribution: usa

In article <1hvjgsINNah5@hp-col.col.hp.com> smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes:
>fritzs@microsoft.com (Fritz Sands) writes:
>> First, the country was not founded on Christian values -- it was deliberately
>> set up as a secular society, in order to not have the religious wars
>> and persecutions common in Europe.
>
>Partially right; it was set up to not have a state church, but it 
>was also largely based on what can be called 'Christian values'.
>

     Walter, describe these values and cite quotations from the
founding fathers indicating that this country was founded on
anything even remotely Christian.  I've seen one quote go
past already that explictly states that the country was _not_
founded on those Christian values (was it John Adams?  I think so.).
Collect your evidence, then come back and prove your statement.

				-Phil

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phil Lafornara         				1 Microsoft Way         
philipla@microsoft.com				Redmond, WA 98052-6399 
Note:  Microsoft doesn't even _know_ that these are my opinions. So there.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: jdahl@rchland.vnet.ibm.com (Jared Dahl)
Subject: Re: Sexuality
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 15:05:22 GMT
Distribution: usa
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: IBM Rochester

|> 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
|> >children.

If heterosexuality is dictated by nature, what makes
homosexuals able to make this lifestyle choice?  If 
nature dictates heterosexuality, then it also dictates
homosexuality.  Maybe they are biologically different, 
which would explain why they don't feel "Nature's Call" 
to be heterosexual.

Your post is a contradiction of itself.  Is skin color
a lifestyle choice?  Is the size of your feet a lifestyle
choice?

Jared Dahl
Opinions expressed are mine, not my employer's.
Don't send e-mail - I won't get it.
From: krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Liberals DO again...
Date: 28 Dec 92 14:55:12 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson AZ

In article <YOUNG.92Dec25171747@ssdd475a.erim.org> young@ssdd475a.erim.org (Peter Young) writes:
>So how come, after all these weeks of claiming that the courts have
>been overrun by flaming liberals whose primary objetive is to restrict
>Christian expression wherever possible, nobody has had anything to say
>about the Cincinatti Situation?  No, silly, not Marge Schott.  The
>courts finding that the KKK could not be prevented from erecting a
>cross in a public square?  Why aren't the starboard champions giving
>thanks for finally being given the opportunity to freely express
>themselves?  Badly worded, there.  It doesn't require thanks.  But a
>little acknowledgement that maybe things aren't as oppressive as they
>are made out to be would be appreciated.

Too bad the decision was not made in favor of a "real" Christian group.
Please, tell us what the Cincinnatti court based its reasoning on.

>Ah, well.  Do, all Christians out there, enjoy your Holiday to the
>fullest.  And the rest of you, take heart in the return of lengthening
>days and "livin' easy," surely just over the horizon.

No "livin' easy" for us middle-classers who are about to have our taxes 
raised (mark my words).

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:12078 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:10568
From: tip@lead.aichem.arizona.edu (Tom Perigrin)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Lifestyle Choices (was  Re: Sexuality)
Date: 3 Jan 93 07:57:24 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Arizona UNIX Users Group

In article <1992Dec30.234500.21163@anasazi.com> briand@anasazi.com (Brian Douglass) writes:

>Tell that to a smoker.  Clearly this is a lifestyle choice, and yet
>non-smokers have persecuted them out of most public places.  Why?  Because
>non-smokers find smoking offensive, smelly, and possibly dangerous to their
>health.

Yes.  I object violently to people smoking in such a fashion so as to force
me to partake of their habit.  But:

1) I don't mind if you do it in your home
2) I don't mind if you exhibit "smokers behavior" in public
3) I wouldn't mind you smoking in public if I had to watch you doing it BUT
	as long as you keep your smoke off of my body.

Using your analogy for homosexuals;

1) I don't mind what they do in their homes
2) I don't mind them exhibiting "gay traits" in public
3) I wouldn't mind them kissing, etc., in public, as long as they don't
	grab my tushy.

(My rule of thumb is;  if I wouldn't mind seeing a male/female couple doing 
this in public, why should I care if two females or two males do it?)
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:12230 alt.politics.clinton:19073 alt.politics.bush:14898 alt.politics.homosexuality:8422 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:10666
From: teddybur@netcom.com (John Sanger)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Lifestyle Choices (was  Re: Sexuality)
Date: 31 Dec 92 05:22:21 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)

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.
>

You obviously do not do much reading on the subject of 'Homosexuality'.



Ciao!
	John S. :^)
	teddybur@netcom.com
__
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:12347 alt.politics.correct:6049 alt.activism:19855
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: Sexuality
Date: 1 Jan 1993 00:00:18 GMT
Organization: Colorado Springs IT Center
NNTP-Posting-Host: fajita19.cs.itc.hp.com

rj24@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Robert  Johnston) writes:
> Walter, you aparently have a difficult time with reading. My point
> was that if you were unable to infer the reasons for his monogamy from 
> his post and your life experience, then You are either very stupid,  or
> you believe that the only reason for monogamy is religion.

pardon me for not living up to your level of intelligence, oh great one. 
In this sort of media, it is easy to misunderstand someone.  We were 
talking about monogamy, so I asked him why he thought it was good.  That
neither implies that I think it is good or bad, or that I think 
religion is the only reason for it, or that I think the moon is made 
of cheese.  It means that I was willing to hear someene else's reasons 
for something.  I would hope you can find something more worthwhile to
call me stupid over...


> Well gee, my copy of the bible says that homosexuals are to be put to 
> death. (or, at the very least, gay men.) Are you telling me that you don't 
> believe in the bible?

Have you already "heard it all" on why catholics don't follow the mosaic law, 
and you're just not satisfied with it, or is that really new to you? 
> 
> By the way Walter, you seem to have assumed that I am homosexual.
> On what basis do you make this assumption? Perhaps you feel that only
> a homosexual could be angered by such subtle gay bashing as you 
> practice. This to me is the surest sign that you are a bigot.

I don't know if you are or not; to be honest it doesn't matter to me. 
As to my thinking only a homosexual could be angered by such subtle gay bashing
...I don't see what I'm saying as bashing.  So I certainly wouldn't think 
that only someone who is gay would be annoyed...if you want to be 
constructive with your criticism of what I'm saying, spell out for me 
what I'm saying that is bashing.  I seem to be too stupid to figure it 
out for myself..


Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:12710 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:11119 alt.politics.clinton:19406 alt.politics.bush:15279 alt.politics.homosexuality:8736
From: dillhoff@aslws01.asl.dl.nec.com (Doug Dillhoff)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Sexuality
Date: 31 Dec 92 22:39:04 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: NEC America, Inc Irving TX

In article <1992Dec31.210930.13529@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> cfthb@ux1.cts.eiu.edu (Howard Black) writes:
>In article <1992Dec31.181358.17099@asl.dl.nec.com> dillhoff@aslws01.asl.dl.nec.com (Doug Dillhoff) writes:
>>
>>That is the whole problem. Teachers in sex ed. and drug ed. classes are
>>told not to tell children what is right and wrong, to just present the
>>facts. This has the opposite effect of what they intend. Kids tend to
>
>    I was told nothing of the kind.  University professors usually aren't,
>btw.  And my class learns exactly what I intend...that's why I teach it
>that way.  Or, maybe I'm wrong...just what *are* my intentions? :-(
>
>>be more promiscuous and use more drugs. Please read 'Why Johnny can't
>>tell right from wrong' by William Kirkpatrick (recently published).
>>Another book is 'Moral Illiteracy' (I believe that's the title)
>>by William Bennett. You wanted references, well now you have them.
>
>    And some fine, nonbiased authors, too!  We wanted references to back up
>your worn-out old assertion that het=normal and homo=choice.  We're still
>waiting for them.
>
>>Start reading.
>
>    The ball is still in your court wrt the above refs.
>

It is obvious that this thread is going nowhere fast. No matter how
many references I present, it won't change your mind. If you
really want to know, you will research the subject yourself. So stop
waiting, I will not waste my time digging up references since it is
obvious from your postings that it would be an exercise in futility.
This is my final word concerning any references. (Can't wait to hear
your cute little responses for that last sentence.)

-- 
Doug Dillhoff            Any opinions expressed are strictly my own.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: green@plains.NoDak.edu (Brad Green)
Subject: Re: Columbus vs Indians (was Re: PC lives)
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 02:19:35 GMT
Organization: North Dakota Higher Education Computing Network

In article <nate.980@psygate.psych.indiana.edu> nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle) writes:
>    Your theory concerning cannibalism amongst the Carribs is hardly 
>sufficient to account for the deaths of over 95 million people in scarcely 
>30 years, nor for that matter is the theory that Aztec human sacrifice 
>was responsible given that the Aztec empire was destroyed before most of 
>the population destruction was complete.

The cannibalism among the Carribs isn't a theory, it's an accepted fact.  Now,
let's get into statement of 95 million people being killed in 30 years.  Can
you quote a source for this figure?  I'm not saying it isn't true, I would
just like to do some reading on it myself - the figure seems unrealisticly
high.


Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:12624 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:11043 alt.politics.clinton:19345 alt.politics.bush:15203 alt.politics.homosexuality:8679
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: Sexuality
Date: 31 Dec 1992 15:51:05 GMT
Organization: Colorado Springs IT Center
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: fajita19.cs.itc.hp.com

cfthb@ux1.cts.eiu.edu (Howard Black) writes:
>     Sounds like this is the big question for you.  Why does it have to be
> judged?...
> ...Homosexuality, bisexuality, and heterosexuality can easily be
> taught in the exact same way.

And when the kids start saying "but my parents say that homosexuality 
is bad" or that "but my parents say that sex is only for people 
who are married to each other" and press the teacher for some 
agreement/disagreement on these issues, then what?  You think 
the teacher is going to get away with just letting it pass?  The 
whole point of teaching this stuff to 1st graders is to teach them 
that it is OK; otherwise there would be no point in bringing it up 
at all.  When the subject is gay-teen-suicide, people seem free 
to admit this curriculum is designed to show that these things are
'normal' and 'ok'; but when the subject is 'teaching morality and 
sexuality', then all of a sudden it's "Why does it have 
to be judged?"....*moldy* red herring...

> >respected and treated equally, period?  Then, as kids confront 
> 
>     Sounds great, except that many adults can't restrain themselves from
> adding their judgement calls to such "education".

Then leave the "education" to the families.  You expect teachers will 
be able to leave *their* judgement calls out of the subject?  That kids 
won't be kids and inquire, when what the school teaches them is contrary 
to what they may have been taught at home, and what social values 
generally teach?  What if a teacher is gay, and is asked by a kid if 
"heather has 2 mommies" is good or bad.  What's he supposed to say? 
Should he be free to say anything?  How about if he is a dyed-in-the-wool
born-again Christian?  

Walter

Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:12058 alt.politics.clinton:18987
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: 21 Dec 92 16:13:49 GMT
Reply-To: borden@m5.harvard.edu
Distribution: usa
Organization: Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, Cambridge, MA,  USA

In article <1992Dec16.203511.19755@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
>In article <1992Dec16.131014.5570@uswmrg.mrg.uswest.com.mrg.uswest.com> greg_bradt@msmgate.mrg.uswest.com (Greg Bradt) writes:

>>The bottom line is, the "problem" with gays in the military resides
>>completely and entirely in the minds of those who oppose it.  It is,
>>ultimately, their choice whether they are determined to remain entrenched
>>in their ignorance or advance with the rest of us.  

>Well, I think we have become convinced that those of the opposing position 
>are dogmatic.  I guess that, since Slick Willie is about to be Prez, we 
>will soon find out which point of view will turn out to be more correct. 
>If you are correct, you will have my submission.  I trust that the 
>converse is true.

Well, your dogmatism denies rights and institutionalizes a second-class
status for a large segment of society.  Whereas our "dogmatism" treats
people as equals with equal rights.  I'll take the latter.  No, we'll be
disappointed in Bill if he doesn't carry through on this one.  I think he
will do it.

  - Dave Borden
    borden@m5.harvard.edu
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:12719 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:11128 alt.politics.clinton:19413 alt.politics.bush:15286 alt.politics.homosexuality:8742
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: Sexuality
Date: 31 Dec 1992 23:50:30 GMT
Organization: Colorado Springs IT Center
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: fajita19.cs.itc.hp.com

cfthb@ux1.cts.eiu.edu (Howard Black) writes:
>     Thanks largely to the pope et al.  Just because they don't want to do
> it (separate them) doesn't make it right.

And just because you want to seperate them, doesn't make *that* right. 
So what does that have to do with the price of rice in China?  I'm sure 
you have better reasons why seperating them is right, other than the 
Pope being against it...

Walter

Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:12322 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:10743 alt.politics.clinton:19135 alt.politics.bush:14946
From: fogarty@sir-c.jpl.nasa.gov (Tim Fogarty)
Subject: CORRECTION to Re: Lifestyle Choices (was  Re: Sexuality)
Organization: JPL, Space Imaging Radar Software Group
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 01:03:47 GMT


In article <1992Dec30.234500.21163@anasazi.com>, briand@anasazi.com (Brian Douglass) writes:
|>>In article <1992Dec30.185545.26789@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> ecl@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (Evelyn C. Leeper) writes:

In my previous posting, I may have quoted the wrong person.  I dont know
who made the original statements.  Sorry for any inconvienence.

--
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,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (kellmeyer steven l)
Subject: Re: Lifestyle Choices and Secular Reasoning
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 00:16:36 GMT

teddybur@netcom.com (John Sanger) writes:

>In article <C095nK.82y@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (kellmeyer steven l) writes:
>>lfoard@Turing.ORG (Lawrence C. Foard) writes:
>>
>>>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:
>>
>>>>Why is *secular* reasoning superior to religious reasoning? 
>>
>>>I'm sitting 10 feet from a machine that can produce 3d images of your
>>>internal organs, it was designed by secular reasoning.
>>
>>And it was designed in a country founded upon a belief in God.  The 
>>country founded upon atheism and a belief in man no longer exists.
>>

>If you are speaking of the United States of America,

To be specific, the "country founded upon a belief in God" is the 
United States of America.

"...the country founded upon atheism and a belief in man" is, ahem, was
the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

> you need to reread
>your history, paying particular attention to the thoughts of Thomas
>Jefferson, who had some hand in the writing of the documents that founded
>our country.  You also need to take a look at the Bill Of Rights.



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

Indeed.  I've read Tom and Ben and George, et. al.  My statement stands.
I've looked at the Bill of Rights.  If Tom, George, Ben, or anyone else
had wanted to remove the religious foundations from the country, they
had only to delete the amendment concerning "respect to religion".
  
Furthermore, it seems that these boys believed man was "endowed with
certain inalienable rights".  Now they tended to be somewhat better
schooled in English than you, and undoubtedly understood that one 
cannot be "endowed" unless Someone is doing the endowing.  Finally,
the numerous references to a Supreme Being that can be found in the public
and private papers of all of these gentlemen makes it quite clear that
this belief was the foundation of their conception of this country.

Steve Kellmeyer
-- 

Steve Kellmeyer 
kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh