HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cfthb@ux1.cts.eiu.edu (Howard Black)
Subject: Re: Sexuality
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 15:05:32 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Eastern Illinois University

In article <1i003kINNf0j@hp-col.col.hp.com> smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes:
>> For many
>> sex and morality seem to be one. 
>
>Not exactly "one", but linked together by the sanctity of life, and the 
>way life is created. 

    I don't see the correlation here at all, unless you're one of the "sex
is only for procreation" types.  If you are, we'll just have to agree to
disagree on this one.

>I have sex with my neighbor's wife; we've both consented to it with 
>each other, no one's twisting my arm or hers; immoral? 

    No, according to the morals of the involved people.  In fact, I'd be
interested in a logical argument that it is immoral, without resort to the
biblebook or other religious dicta.

>Hmmmm...that's what I thought it still was; enjoyed responsibly between 
>married people. 

    Why do they need to be married?  Again, please no religion-based
arguments, just a logical assertion of what harm is done to the consenting
adults or others.

>Cocaine makes people feel real good.  Is it good?  And typical people 

    Can be.  Many people don't think cocaine is 'bad', only when it is
misused [sic].

>don't think sex is 'bad', only when it is misused. 

    I don't agree that typical people don't think sex is inherently
something negative.  Why don't people discuss their sex lives as casually
as their golf games?  "It's no one else's business?"  Please... neither is
your golf score, and humans' sex lives are far more important to them than
golf (except for Quayle, of course ;-) ).
-- 
   ******************************************************************
     Howard Black                             cfthb@ux1.cts.eiu.edu
     Department of Chemistry                  Eastern Illinois Univ. 
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:12253 alt.politics.clinton:19088 alt.politics.bush:14907 alt.politics.homosexuality:8436 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:10680
From: smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith)
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: 24 Dec 1992 20:00:00 GMT
Organization: Colorado Springs IT Center
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: fajita19.cs.itc.hp.com

john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore) writes:
> In article <1hatudINNep5@fido.asd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
> ]If we are talking about something which was never reported, where you
> ]won't reveal who was involved, then we are not left with much.   All
> ]we are left with is an allegation, and as we have seen recently, allegations
> ]are a dime a dozen, and hard facts are difficult to come by.
> 
> In other words, you don't believe the various people who have reported
> these events bu(t) who chose to protect the privacy of those involved. 

I wonder if Mr. Livesay is equally suspicious of the recently reported 
stats in Colorado that say attacks on gays are up something like 4-fold 
since the passage of amendment 2?  Or is that *different*? 

Walter Smith
smithw@cs.itc.hp.com
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: harryo@cbnewse.cb.att.com (harold.r.holm)
Subject: Re: rush?
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 01:08:48 GMT
Summary: Where this type of drivel may come from...

In article <1gtu3jINN34v@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, cd651@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Wally L. Blume) writes:
> 
> In a previous article, MAC135@psuvm.psu.edu () says:
> 
> >Rush Limbaugh is a f**king a**hole, who isn't smart enough to wake up and take
> >a real look at the f**king world.  (flame me, it's winter here)
> >                                               -mike-
> 
>   Gee, you sure know how to express yourself. Is there something in
> particular you dislike about the man or do you dislike common sense 
> all together? Please enlighten us since your message really on says
> you don't think much of him. (Are we supposed to care whether or not 
> you like the man?) At least when he dislikes something he tells you 
> why.                             ^^
>   There, that ought to piss you off enough to tell us what's really on your
> mind.
> -- 

Dittos to that reply...and I was just wondering.....is "mike" 's posting
an example of what the wonderful benefits our society reaps from listening
to "progressive" broadcast pioneers like, perhaps, Howard Stern?

Howard Stern....yeah, that would be the ticket for typical Rush-flamers....

                                                     H.R. Holm

*standard disclaimers,etc;
replies preferred in the newsgroup only*  

Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
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: 18 Dec 92 16:15:25 GMT
Distribution: world, na, usa
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson AZ

In article <1992Dec18.091953.19727@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> turnert@helium.gas.uug.arizona.edu (Thom F Turner ) writes:
>In article <1992Dec16.174347.17899@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
>
>Hmmm...
>It is interesting that someone in our CONSERVATIVE physics department
>has SOOOO much time to post to UseNet.  I guess since we students (especially
>us Lesbian and Gay Students at the UA) helped topple the right-wing
>department head this semester, there hasn't been much leadership or
>focus in the department, so the faculty/staff spend their time posting
>here.  Curious.
> 
>Thom Turner
>University of Arizona Student 

That's pretty funny.  Care to take responsibility for the sun rising now?
Also, what does the amount of time Ted spends on Usenet have to do with the
department.  You're making a stupid asumption that he spends all of his work
time posting.  That would be like me suggesting that you spend all your time
having sex with men in your classes just because you're gay and are a student
here at the UA.  I guess since you seem to be speaking on behalf of your
organization, it is obvious that there is no focus, leadership or LOGIC in the
Gay/Lesbian community here at the UA. 
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org (Mike A. McAngus)
Subject: Re: Sexuality
Organization: Homebrew Virtual Reality Labs
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 01 Jan 1993 21:30:23 GMT

[crossposting to alt.politics.bush and alt.politics.clinton deleted]

rodney james freier (freier@mail.physics.utah.edu) wrote:
: 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 deliber
ately
: |> > 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
: |> 
:     Careful.  Better make that Deist values.  Most of our founding
: fathers were not Christian.
: 

Careful.  From research that I did to respond to a similar argument on a local 
BBS, I found that 51 of the 55 signers of the Declaration of Independence were 
Protestants.  Of the 39 signers of the Constitution, the only information I 
could find was that 2 were Roman Catholics and Ben Franklin was a Deist.
-- 
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: briand@anasazi.com (Brian Douglass)
Subject: Re: Lifestyle Choices (was  Re: Sexuality)
Organization: Anasazi Inc Phx Az USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 20:47:41 GMT

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.
From: stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Morton Downey
Date: 21 Dec 92 05:49:59 GMT
Reply-To: stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce)
Organization: Handmade Designs, Salem, OR, USA

In article <1992Dec8.155207.7657@scott.skidmore.edu>
cmoore@scott.skidmore.edu (colin moore) writes:
>I've been reading this group for a while, and I must
>say, some of you scare the hell out of me.

Why?
-- 
orstcs!opac!bug!stevef          I am the NRA              Steven R. Fordyce
uunet!sequent!ether!stevef         . . .  	        Deer are for Dinner
From: mjenkins@alfred.carleton.ca (Michael Jenkinson)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: RUSH=FAG!
Date: 29 Dec 92 23:44:40 GMT
Organization: Carleton University

In <2827.97.uupcb@hal9k.ann-arbor.mi.us> greg.mable@hal9k.ann-arbor.mi.us (Greg Mable)  writes:

>Does the big guy ever get on this conference or is he too fat
>and stupid to use a computer?  I heard he's gay and his lover
>is a black man (and a democrat)!  Hope he uses a condom!

Here, ladies and gentleman, is the reason we need a moderated
conservative newsgroup.

Michael
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:12606 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:11025 alt.politics.clinton:19328 alt.politics.bush:15185 alt.politics.homosexuality:8662
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: 31 Dec 1992 15:02:37 GMT
Organization: Colorado Springs IT Center
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: fajita19.cs.itc.hp.com

philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
>     Your wife doesn't understand bisexuality.  Not a bit.  Bisexuality
> is not about getting laid more often, at least not for most people.

I don't disagree; and I have no more of an understanding than she does. 
All we have to pull from is our own experience, and whatever we happen 
to read on the subject.  My only (known) exposure has been in usenet...

>      What is an "active bisexual"?  Is that any bisexual person that
> is sexually active, or only one that is sexually active with members
> of both genders at the same time?

The 2nd.  
 
> >It is the question of sexual monogamy. 
> >Most people I know of think that marriage should be monogamous.  Not that 
> >it always is, but *should* be; we're talking an ideal.
> 
>     Most people also believe that marriage should be opposite-sex.
> So it seems like we're back to square one with this.

Meaning?  That there's no point in talking about it?  (not a flame, just 
missing your point.)
> >sexual *practice*  and fidelity, along with orientation.
> 
>      If we're going to teach about different kinds of families,
> we may as well teach about them.  Not all families have monogamous
> parents.  Not all families have only two parents, either.

So what exactly would the teaching on this subject include? 

>      Once again - "Practice" has nothing to do with bisexuality.
> Bisexuality is a sexual identity just like heterosexuality is.
> You can be a celibate bisexual.

maybe what we need is a better set of terms, that differentiate 
better between orientation and practice.  I know myself, and probobly 
a lot of 'straight' people, are lacking in understanding in that 
area...

> >So, looking at it that way, do you think (or anyone else who has an 
> >opinion) that bisexuality should be brought up as well?  
> 
>      It seems as valid as any other type of family.  Why shouldn't
> it be brought up?

How and at what age would you do it? 

The main reason I would cite is that it conflicts with 'social norms' to 
the degree (on sexual orientation *and* monogamy, if actively practiced) 
that it would be either better left for older kids, or dealt with outside 
the classroom.  

Walter

Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
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 05:28:48 GMT

In article <1ht66dINN65k@hp-col.col.hp.com> smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes:
>snodgras@lclark.edu (Bil Snodgrass) writes:
>> Pre-school.... I mean they are optional... Some parents with one way
>> of value system might believe it is best to start their children at
>> an early age...so they will send their kids to the pre-school class.
>> They have that option.  Those who want to send their kids at a later
>> age will send their children when they see fit or they may even opted
>> out of sending their children period.......
>> 
>> Now...are yo willing to allow a class on sexuality that shows
>> homosexuality and heterosexuality in the same unbiased light, a
>> class that would be optional....?
>
>Not in pre-school, or early elementary school.   Even some of the people 
>posting in favor of COTR say that first graders aren't able to understand 
>sexuality.   I think it should be left to high school, if it is going to 
>be done.  In your example, who is going to teach the class to the preschoolers? 
>
>Walter
>

Walter, you seem to be missing the point. A child's personality and 
biases are largely set by about the age of six. starting to teach such
matters in high school will have limited effects at best. If such 
matters are to be taught, they must be taught early on in life.
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:12811 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:11243 alt.politics.homosexuality:8812
From: mchenry@latech.edu (Michael Q. McHenry)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Sexuality
Date: 2 Jan 93 05:42:42 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Louisiana Tech University

rj24@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Robert  Johnston) writes:
>smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes:
>>snodgras@lclark.edu (Bil Snodgrass) writes:
>>> Now...are yo willing to allow a class on sexuality that shows
>>> homosexuality and heterosexuality in the same unbiased light, a
>>> class that would be optional....?
>>
>>Not in pre-school, or early elementary school.   Even some of the people 
>>posting in favor of COTR say that first graders aren't able to understand 
>>sexuality.

I don't think that 1st graders are ready for the heavy duty sex ed 
stuff, and their parents (some, anyway) should be better at determining
when their children are ready for this.

BUT!  The real issue here isn't sex ed to elementary schoolers.  They may
not be able to understand sex, but they can certainly grasp the concept
of a family unit, any the point is, like it or not, there are children
being raised (and being raised quite well) in same-sex households.  The
knowledge that these family arrangements exist should not be withheld
from 1st graders.  This is far from getting in a plug (no pun intended)
for anal sex.

>>            I think it should be left to high school, if it is going to 
>>be done.  In your example, who is going to teach the class to the preschoolers? 
>>Walter
>
>Walter, you seem to be missing the point. A child's personality and 
>biases are largely set by about the age of six. starting to teach such
>matters in high school will have limited effects at best. If such 
>matters are to be taught, they must be taught early on in life.

I agree.  It would be a good first step in reducing some of the
fear and its ensuing hate.  

-- 
Quinn McHenry               "If you would be a real seeker after truth, it
mchenry@engr.latech.edu      is necessary that at least once in your life
Biomedical Engineering       you doubt, as far as possible, all things."
Louisiana Tech University                 - Rene Descartes
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: fritzs@microsoft.com (Fritz Sands)
Subject: Re: Sexuality
Date: 31 Dec 92 18:01:22 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation
Distribution: usa

In article <1992Dec30.192133.8061@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.
| >
| >Incorrect, as well as irrelevant.
| 
| In your opinion.
| 
| The point is, I don't want someone teaching my children values that
| do not reflect the christian values that this country was founded on.

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.

Seond, you made assertions ("dictated by nature" and "lifestyle choice")
which are not value definitions.  These assertions are, simply, false.

These assertions are no more Christian values than the equally invalid 
assertion "pi = 3", and schools are under no obligation to engage in
a conspiracy of silence to perpetuate delusions on your children.

   Fritz

Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:12271 alt.politics.clinton:19105 alt.politics.bush:14921 alt.politics.homosexuality:8452 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:10698
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
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: 25 Dec 92 01:21:20 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: sgi
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com

In article <1hdm8eINNdqs@hp-col.col.hp.com>, smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes:
|> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
|> > I thought I already said this, but just in case, I'll say it again.   I
|> > will wait for authoritative figures.
|> > What this group, which is still nameless, claims, may turn out to be
|> > correct or it may not.   We'll see when the crime stats appear.
|> 
|> I think you're missing the point, Jon; the crime stats will never come 
|> out on those numbers, 

What point am I missing?    I know of no concept "Crime stats on those
numbers".   All I know is that the police will produce crimes stats
as they usually do, and then we will see what has been going on, or
not going on, in Colorado.


|>                        because they were based on gays reporting the 
|> incidents to the group, and *not* to the police; so there are no crime 
|> records to appear.  

Well, now you have me intrigued.    Some still un-named group in Colorado
published a list of alleged hate crimes which they guaranteed had *not* 
been reported to the police?

It sounds a little strange, but I suppose if a group wants to mention
stuff that they clearly identify as being anecdotal and unreported, which
is what you seem to be saying here, then they may do so.   First Amendment
and all that.


|>                So should the group (or any group in such a situation) 
|> use the stats, if they have little to know verifiable backing, and 
|> support the group's cause? 

It sounds to me as though they can mention anecdotal evidence, and you
can point out that it's anecdotal, just as I have been doing with
anecdotal evidence here on the net.


|> 
|> > Ugly.   And also official, and apparently a fatal anti-Gay hate crime.
|> 
|> Yup.  Assuming that it is as it appears, which seems likely as you 
|> conveyed it. 

No, not me.   All I am doing is pointing to a UPI report, which in turn
quoted the Navy.   I also gave the date, so that people can go and look 
it up for themselves.

jon.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
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: 23 Dec 1992 14:12:32 GMT
Organization: Colorado Springs IT Center
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: fajita19.cs.itc.hp.com

tip@lead.aichem.arizona.edu (Tom Perigrin) writes:
> An out of work freind of mine moved in with his brother, who was undergoing
> a divorce.  The father thought that having a full time live in childcare
> provider would help him maintain custody.  The courts agreed (mom
> was pretty distastefull).   This has worked out so well that they
> are still being a two male parent family after 2 years.  Unless my friend
> has changed a WHOLE lot in the last 2 years,  there isn't any bedroom
> activity between him and his brother.

And in article:  
Skippy writes:
>As a charter member of the MTV generation, I can attest that I saw
>at least two heterosexual same-sex couples: "Kate & Allie," and the two guys
>on "My Two Dads." 
>Admittedly, neither "couple" shared a bed. 

Which is why it has been suggested that the book drop the 'daddy and his 
roommate go to bed together' and keep the rest...

Walter Smith

Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:12398 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:10819 alt.politics.clinton:19176 alt.politics.bush:14988 alt.politics.homosexuality:8496