HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dos@major.panix.com (Dave O'Shea)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Education Regarding Alternative Family Units (Re: The Analogy Be
Date: 26 Dec 92 12:16:20 GMT
Organization: Spaceley Sprockets, Inc.

dlhanson@nap.amoco.com (David L. Hanson) writes:

> >> I saw this posted on USENET today.  Since my kids are homeschooled, they
> >> are NOT subjected to sodomites, socialists, and other liberals but for tho
> >> who children are incarcerated in the public socialist system, this
> >> information will help you to protect them.
> 
> >I think your opening remarks, either with or without the not mark you as 
> >more of a hater than you wanted to admit.  Such harsh, shrill, overbroad 
> >generalizations make me hope that your kids can rise above the views and 
> >outlook on life you hold.  How sad.
> 
> I stand for my Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, unashamedly as He gives me
> grace. God has told mankind how to live and how to be saved in His Holy
> Word, the Bible. Man may obey Him and become His children or they are
> His enemies.

Um, speak for yourself, huh? As an atheist, I have nothing to do with
*your* lord and saviour, so please stop slapping me with him like a dead
fish.

I'm all for the right of parents not to have their kids subjected to the
mindless pap that schools call an education; while the illiterates being
churned out by colleges do make me much more valuable in the job market,
I feel sorry for them.

But some of the things you advocate - like not teaching kids "organic
evolution" - simply go against common sense. Schools should present
information that is backed up by the best possible evidence. Physical
evidence contradicts almost everything presented in the bible - so take
it as just one more test of your faith. (That God, he must be some kind
of prankster!)

Schools are in their current state because too many people are too busy
trying to put a different spin on every part of the cirriculum. The
lefties demand that kids get sex education - but the righties demand
that they not - so the end result is that kids end up getting it, but
it's so watered down as to be meaningless.

As long as politicians are demanding that schools be surrogate parents,
this crap will go on.

> "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	

Um, remember the parable about the widow who quietly drops a single coin
in the basket, and how that meant much more than the great show that the
rich man put on? It might be worth reviewing.




--
Socialized medicine: Health care with the compassion of an IRS auditor, the
intelligence of a DMV employee, and the cost control of the Pentagon.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: elliott@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Jr. Frank W. Elliott)
Subject: Re: Education Regarding Alternative Family Units (Re: The Analogy Betwixt Gays & Blacks (Re: Children in Same-gender Families))
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 02:19:06 GMT

In article <1hqvjuINN5em@hp-col.col.hp.com> smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes:
>elliott@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Jr. Frank W. Elliott) writes:
>> Do you seriously think that the voucher system will allow people
>> without children to stop paying taxes to support public schools?
>
>No, but it will allow those who disagree, for whatever reason,
>with what the public schools are teaching, to yank their kids 
>out and send them somewhere else, which will take needed money 
>away from the school system.
>
>Walter
>
Doesn't have a lot to do with answering Bill's complaint about
having to pay for indoctrination contrary to his values does it?
Yet you said that the voucher system would answer his complaint.
Are you trying to resolve anything or are you
arguing for the sake of arguing?

--Frank
From: libwca@emory.edu (Bill Anderson)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: MurderPhobes, RapistPhobes, etc. (was: Re: antihomosex...)
Date: 26 Dec 92 15:44:02 GMT
Organization: Emory University, Atlanta, GA
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3

roderir@hobo.ECE.ORST.EDU (richard roderick) writes:
: 
: This is a very said statement.  Why?  Because the Koran is almost
: identical to the Bible. (you can figure out the rest)
: The other problem with this is that our country's founders based
: it on the Bible and that was what I was talking about.
: (if you don't believe our founders were Christians read George
:  Washington's speech to define Thanksgiving Day!)

Some of the founding fathers were Christians, some were
deists, and some, such as Franklin and Paine, seem to 
have been agnostics.  
 : 
: I do oppose homosexuality, but I do not hate homosexuals.  Who decides
: what are civil rights?  You?  NOT!  We do, as in the majority.  So if
: the majority decides Christianity should be banned then it would.
: Although I wouldn't count on that happening anytime soon.
: (That is what some groups are trying to do though)

No, the majority does NOT decide "what are civil rights."  The 
constitution, and specifically the Bill of Rights, were designed 
to prevent the trampling of rights by the majority.  
What groups do you feel are trying to ban Christianity?

: 
: 
: When did I say I was intolerant?  When did I say homosexuals are
: pediphiles (sorry for previous mis-spelling)?  I said the homosexual
: movement wants complete sexual freedom and pediphiles is include in
: that.  Also, do you think pediphilia is wrong?  Isn't it their business
: what they do in their bedrooms?  No, because society says so.
: It is not a civil right to have sex with a conseting child. PERIOD.

That's why he used the phrase "consenting adult".  Children are not
generally considered to be mature enough to give consent in sexual
situations.  And by the way, I know quite a few gay men and
lesbians, and I don't know ANYONE who thinks pedophilia should 
be legalized.  Such people do exist, but they are a small minority.
: 
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: shallit@graceland.uwaterloo.ca (Jeffrey Shallit)
Subject: using the bible to advance bigotry
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 14:16:39 GMT

In article <1992Dec29.150908.2994@porthos.cc.bellcore.com> wgb3@pyuxf.uucp (25336-buoni) writes:
>My guess is that what is being sought is acceptance, not tolerance.  The 
>problem is that living a gay lifestyle is not OK (my values).  That is not
>to say that homosexuals are inherently evil, but that God did not intend us 
>to function this way.  Nor did he intend for us to be sexually active 
>outside of marriage, indulge in "immoral" behavior, ....  

Oh, so you are the authority on what "God" [whose existence is in doubt] said?
Pardon me if I feel reluctant to base decisions on a school curriculum
on YOUR indefensible revelations from "God".  The US is not a theocracy,
the last time I checked, although there are many who would have it so.

>My children are a precious gift that God has given my wife and I [sic].

Sounds like you need a sex education class.

>We have 
>been entrusted with the responsibility of raising our children in a manner
>consistent with the teachings of our faith.  Jesus Christ is as real to us 
>as the keyboard that I am using at this moment.

It's not my fault if you are delusional.  Why, Jesus Christ just spoke to me
through this keyboard and told me that you need to work on your grammar!

>When the school teaches that >homosexuality as a valid lifestyle, it operates
>in direct conflict with the values I attempt to instill within my children.  
>
>These are my beliefs.  I don't expect you to adopt them, nor do I expect you to
>accept them.  All I ask in return is that you give me the same respect in
>return.  In my view, teaching my children views which are in direct conflict
>with our (my wife and I) values is a violation of this respect. 
>
>Bill Buoni

"We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the sense and to
the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and
his children smart."
	H. L. Mencken

It's intolerant people like Mr. Buoni that caused the death of homosexuals
like Alan Turing.  I suggest you read about how he died, Mr. Buoni--
it might open your eyes about the kinds of the things that homosexuals
go through.
From: greg_bradt@msmgate.mrg.uswest.com (Greg Bradt)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Just my musing....
Date: 22 Dec 92 18:49:32 GMT
     <1h7gtbINNcgj@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>
Organization: US West Marketing Resources
XUserAgent: Nuntius v1.1b3
NntpPostingHost: greg_bradt.mrg.uswest.com

In article <1h7gtbINNcgj@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> Wally L. Blume,
cd651@cleveland.Freenet.Edu writes:
>  I think this is an appropriate time to point out that when a someone 
>doesn't agree with Rush, but can't logicaly say why, they result to personal
>attacks.

Likewise for the even larger group of people who =do= agree with Rush but
cannot logically say whysay why!

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".
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: young@ssdd475a.erim.org (Peter Young)
Subject: Re: Kicked out of a.f.d-q?  I don't think so
In-reply-to: nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu's message of Wed, 23 Dec 1992 16:20:13 GMT
Organization: Environmental Research Institute of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
	<nate.964@psygate.psych.indiana.edu> <1102@blue.cis.pitt.edu>
	<nate.979@psygate.psych.indiana.edu>
Date: 23 Dec 92 13:24:16

In article <nate.979@psygate.psych.indiana.edu> nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle) writes:

>   >I can understand your wish that everyone be welcomed in every newsgroup,
>   >but it's not a very realistic wish.  The existence of moderated
>   >groups and the frequent calls for more such groups are evidence of
>   >this.

> [Paragraph deleted.]

>       As far as the increasing tendency towards moderated newsgroups is 
>   concerned, I'm sure that you're correct, however I'm afraid that I see 
>   the trend as somewhat undesirable. In my opinion the free and open 
>   exchange of ideas loses a great deal of its value when the participants 
>   on either side retreat into an environment of even well-intentioned 
>   censorship.

As I read it, S. G. said the same thing, didn't she?

>       No, I'm not sure just what I've said or done that's given you the 
>   idea that I might disagree with you on that point, but maybe if I keep on 
>   denying your incorrect implications then you'll eventually get the message 
>   that I am not defending Steve or Jack but rather the right of free speech 
>   to which they have just as great a claim to as you or me.

I have a real hard time with this one.  If I choose to skip over posts
by particular individuals, or to not read particular authors or listen
to particular radio commentators, how does that restrict anyone's
right to free speech?  If Steve or Jack convince folks that their
posts are not worth reading, there is nothing anywhere that can
reasonably be done to force those folks to read them.  I hope you
aren't suggesting that the entire alt.??? group got together and
conspired to kill Steve and Jack?  If this is true, these guys must
post some incredible drivel.  This sounds like the claim of
restriction of first ammendment rights because Rush cannot be found in
the DC area.  It doesn't wash.

--
Peter Young
young@erim.org
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush
From: harp@netcom.com (Gregory O. Harp)
Subject: Re: Lifestyle Choices (was Re: Sexuality)
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 04:54:29 GMT

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.  But in this battle the rights of a clear minority, have had little
>weight in comparison to the greater good of the public.  That is the rights
>of the majority have been deemed more important than the rights of a
>minority.  

That's apples vs oranges.  

Second hand smoke causes toxins to enter _my_ bloodstream that _I_
don't want there.  The idea that lesbigays somehow harm heterosexuals
is outrageous.  The idea that smokers harm nonsmokers is a matter of
medical fact.
-- 
-----------------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: ecl@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (Evelyn C. Leeper)
Subject: Re: Lifestyle Choices (was  Re: Sexuality)
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 21:29:30 GMT

In article <1992Dec30.191743.7958@asl.dl.nec.com> dillhoff@aslws01.asl.dl.nec.com (Doug Dillhoff) writes:
> In article <1992Dec30.185545.26789@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> ecl@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (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? 

No.  But what do "special rights" have to do with this?  No one is
suggesting portraying *only* same-sex couples in the curriculum, so I
have no idea what you're talking about here.  What they are requesting
is special rights for mixed-sex couples, in that they would be the only
couples allowed to be portrayed in the curriculum.

> All I am saying is that unless you can show me that homosexual sex
> can create life (as the heterosexual sex act does) than it is an
> un-natural act. Homosexual sex uses a human output device (waste
> disposal) as an input device. This is not natural and therefore
> should not be considered normal and should not be taught as an
> alternate lifestyle. 

Kissing cannot create life, so by what you claim above it is an
unnatural act.  Sex using birth control cannot create life, so by what
you claim above it is an unnatural act.  Sex with a woman past menopause
or with one member sterile cannot create life, so by what you claim
above it is an unatural act.  (Heck, posting to Netnews cannot create
life, and is *clearly* an unnatural act.)

(Oh, and by the way, neither lesbian sex nor oral sex (not two mutually
exclusive terms, I realize) use a human output device as an input
device.  Just thought you'd want to know.)

Evelyn C. Leeper  |  +1 908 957 2070  |  att!mtgzy!ecl or  ecl@mtgzy.att.com
--
"God does not play dice with the universe."  --Albert Einstein
"Albert, stop telling God what to do."  --Niels Bohr
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:12319 alt.politics.clinton:19131 alt.politics.bush:14942 alt.politics.homosexuality:8467 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:10737
From: tip@lead.aichem.arizona.edu (Tom Perigrin)
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: 26 Dec 92 19:44:44 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Arizona UNIX Users Group

In article <1992Dec25.175244.2266@anasazi.com> john@anasazi.com writes:
>
>And also another example of why the conditioning that the military would
>require in order to accept gays would not work. THese sailors were
>obviously conditioned against murder (life in Leavenworth Stockade breaking
>breaks is not to be taken lightly), and yet they still committed. To me,
>this simply highlights the aversion that some young men in the military
>have to gays (no surprise to me), and how hard it would be to change
>that aversion, and how poorly units would function in the interim.

Your arguement boils down to "because these people would do an action even
though it is wrong, we must pander to their desires".   Now, do you
support one of Rush's big bugaboos, condom distribution in schools?
The arguement is the same "they are going to do it, therefore we must
support their actions".

I have no problem with condom giveaways because I don't object to premarital
sex.  But you must adopt one of these positions to be self consistent:

1)  accept the behavior of people, and set up society to allow them to 
	do whatever they want (i.e., ban gays from military becuase
	of anti gay feeling, AND SIMULTANEOUSLY distribute condoms to
	help make premarital sex safer)
2)  claim that you don't support either violence aginst gays or premarital sex
	and try to modify the behavior of young people, both wrt to premarital
	sex (abstainence) and gays (tolerance)
3)  Admit you support violence against gays, but don't support premarital
	sex (thus, keep them out of the military, and DON't distribute
	condoms).
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:12096 alt.politics.clinton:19012
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: 21 Dec 92 18:20:25 GMT
Organization: US West Marketing Resources
XUserAgent: Nuntius v1.1b3
NntpPostingHost: greg_bradt.mrg.uswest.com

In article <1992Dec19.223351.18840@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> Ted Krueger,
krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu writes:
>There was a Gay Pride Parade in San Francisco which had several floats and 
>the like.  On one (or more) floats, one gay man did, in fact, give oral 
>sex to another.  I am not sure if it was actually on Mail Strees, but it 
>was on the course of the parade.

All that proves is that, just like heterosexuals, there are gays with no
sense of decorum.  Neither group has a monopoly on manners any more than
either group has a claim to morality.

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".
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:12239 alt.politics.clinton:19082 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:10674 alt.politics.bush:14901
From: glen@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Glen Sonnenberg)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: An Apology to Ted
Date: 22 Dec 92 17:48:43 GMT
Distribution: world, na, usa
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson AZ

In article <1992Dec22.004304.28942@anasazi.com> briand@anasazi.com (Brian Douglass) writes:
>In article <1992Dec20.130523.6747@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> turnert@helium.gas.uug.arizona.edu (Thom F Turner ) writes:
>
>That's a personnel issue to be dealt with by a personnel office.  But
>original commentary again portends that he was summarily dismissed because
>of his views, not because of any insubordination of authority (ie. a rule
>that says you can't compare gays to gila monsters on UA letterhead for
>which he should be disclipined).

Where did you get this from?  He was not dismissed at all.  He resigned
to go back to heading a research group.  Given the amount of research
he has done and the grant funding he has he can pretty much go anywhere
he wants.  Even if there was some back-door politics that he was 
reprimanded for it would not have been something he would have been 
dismissed for.  He was brought here because of his reputation to attract
the Supercollider to Arizona.  He brought a lot of good professors with
him who will now be leaving.  One of the woman professors that he
recruited has already left.  So much for a respectable, politically correct
physics department.  

>Lets flip this around.  Yes PC lives and breathes on American Campuses.
>Yes PC lives and breathes in Right-Wing politics (I probably know about
>this far better than you).  But just because right-wingers trivialize your
>arguments with PC doesn't mean you can do likewise.
>
>Any minority of the citizenry right or left that pushes its moral dogma on 
>others against their wishes is just seeking its own version of PC.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: ecl@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (Evelyn C. Leeper)
Subject: Re: Bisexuality (was Re: [a long list of subjects])
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 00:04:19 GMT

In article <1992Dec30.211153.19312@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
> In article <1992Dec30.182736.25870@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> ecl@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (Evelyn C. Leeper) writes:
> >Monogamous means that you choose to be faithful to one person.  It does not
> >mean that you stop finding other people attractive.
> >
> >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.
> 
> So then, if you are a gay man, but married to a straight woman, you are 
> still monogamous as long as you don't like having sex with her?

I have no idea how you derived this from what I said.

If you are a gay man, married to a straight woman, you are monogamous
if you are not having sex with anyone else (even if you still find some men
attractive).

If you are a bisexual man, married to a straight woman, you are monogamous
if you are not having sex with anyone else (even if you still find some men
or women attractive).

If you are a man attracted to both blondes and brunettes, married to a
blond woman, you are monogamous if you are not having sex with anyone else
(even though you still find some brunettes attractive).

I hope this makes clear what I am saying.

Evelyn C. Leeper  |  +1 908 957 2070  |  att!mtgzy!ecl or  ecl@mtgzy.att.com
--
"To make the point [that homosexuals hamper military effectiveness] I'd
say that you would have to sift through your military history till you
find an instance in which failure has been attributed to the presence
of homosexuals on the losing side.  I'm not aware of any such case in
the past 2500 years, but I'd be interested to hear what you find."
-Nathan Engle
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:12408 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:10824 alt.politics.clinton:19182 alt.politics.bush:14995 alt.politics.homosexuality:8503