HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Robert.T.Warfield@dartmouth.edu (Robert T. Warfield)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.president.clinton,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: using the bible to advance bigotry
Date: 1 Jan 93 17:53:00 GMT
 <28DEC199216463769@zeus.tamu.edu> 
 <1992Dec29.150908.2994@porthos.cc.bellcore.com>  
 <C06IBs.9Br@math.uwaterloo.ca>
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
X-Posted-From: InterNews1.0b3@newshost.dartmouth.edu

Even the devil may quote scripture to serve his own purposes. (I've
alwass wanted to say that)

Yes. the bible does say that homosexuality is wrong. However, Christ
said "let he who is without sin cast the first stone.". I doubt either
one of you are perfict. I know I'm not.
 
It's high time that we start accepting ALL people, Black, white, red,
gay, ect, as human beings worthy of our respect and love.

**********************************************************************
* Arthur, king of the Britons    * King of the who?                  *
* King of the Brittons!          * Who are the Brittons anyway?      *
* I am, you are, we all are the  *                                   *
* Brittons and I am your king!   * Well, I didn't vote for you.      *
**********************************************************************
Robert T. Warfield@dartmouth.edu
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce)
Subject: Re: Education Regarding Alternative Family Units (Re: The Analogy Betwixt Gays & Blacks (Re: Children in Same-gender Families))
Organization: Elitist Usenet Administrators, Turkey Division
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 19:30:17 GMT

In article <1992Dec19.215902.18440@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:

>>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.
>
>It does exactly bring into question the activities in the bedroom, because 
>sexual preference is a direct correlation with same-sex parents.

A book depicting opposite-sex parents would presumably demonstrate
that they sleep in the same bed.  What does that have to do with
sexual practices?

>Can you say "touche?"

Touchy, touchy, touchy.

-- 
____ Tim Pierce                / 
\  / twpierce@unix.amherst.edu /               Rocks say goodbye.
 \/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) / 
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: biediger@lonestar.utsa.edu (David . Biediger)
Subject: Re: Are the Rush Summaries history?
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 19:24:03 GMT

In article <28942@optima.cs.arizona.edu> bakken@cs.arizona.edu (Dave Bakken) writes:
>I've been gone for a bit, but I don't see any summaries
>(and saw them slowing down quite a bit in recent weeks).
>Are they a thing of the past now?  I never understood how
>John Switzer could have kept up for that for as long as
>he did!

I'm wondering the same thing.  I sure hope they're *not* history.
I've been making them available on a local BBS and announcing
availability on the LIMBAUGH echo.  No need to say they are very
popular in FidoNet too!  :)

Does anyone know something about the summaries?


David

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: Lifestyle Choices (was  Re: Sexuality)
Organization: JPL, Space Imaging Radar Software Group
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 00:56:42 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:
|>>
|>>>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.
|>
|>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.  
|>

Read the first part again !  "unless you can come up with some *secular*
reasons".  You have come up with some secular reasons why smokers are
discriminated against.  And most people would support this.  The question
for Mr Douglass was and still is "Can you come up with some secular 
(non-religious) reasons to justify discrimination against homosexuals ?"
How does granting equal protection to homosexuals impact the greater good
of the public ?

--
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: elf@halcyon.com (Elf Sternberg)
Subject: Re: Sexuality
Originator: elf@halcyon.com
Organization: Pendor, UnLtd.
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 04:17:30 GMT

In article <1992Dec30.194545.8342@asl.dl.nec.com>
     dillhoff@aslws01.asl.dl.nec.com (Doug Dillhoff) writes:

>I have read the evidence that suggests otherwise and it is not at all
>conclusive.

   Is it my imagination or is Doug becoming a parrot?  When we ask for
documentation, he states simply "I've got documentation."

   Does this sound familiar?

   Shades of Danny J. Karnes, perhaps?

         Elf !!!
--
elf@halcyon.com  (Elf Sternberg)

Then, I was inspired.               God, thy will is hard
Now, I'm sad and tired.             But you hold every card.
Listen, surely I've exceeded        I will drink your cup of poison.
Expectations.                       Nail me to your cross and break me.
Tried for three years,              Bleed me, beat me.
Seems like thirty.                  Kill me.
Could you ask as much               Take me now.
From any other man?                 Before I change my mind.
From: jaitken@csugrad.cs.vt.edu (Jeff Aitken)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: The Ultimate Hypocrisy
Date: 22 Dec 92 18:58:13 GMT
Organization: Virginia Tech Computer Science Dept, Blacksburg, VA
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4


     I promised awhile back to re-enter this discussion when
finals were over.....   As I mentioned, the abortion debate
and the one over euthanasia are similar in many respects.
Both involve what some consider "murder" and "live" human 
beings.  I don't remember where I read this (but I could
produce a reference, if you really don't believe me - it 
will take an hour or two at the library)  The discussion
in this particular book centers on what we mean by "alive".
I don't have exact quotes, so the following is (at best) paraphrasing
from  the book:
     ... really taking the life of someone?  ... They are
not 'alive' in the true sense of the word.  What do we mean by 
'alive'?  Some consider the mere presence of a heartbeat
to signify true life.  Some consider meaningless chemical activities
that take place in the brain as a sign of life.  But is something
that has a heartbeat and chemical activity necessarily "alive"?
No, being alive means more than that.  It means being able to
think, to laugh, to relate in some way or another to the world
around.

     This is the general idea I use as a definition of "life"
When does a group of cells become a "locus of rights"?  In my book
it happens when it pops out into the world of its own accord.


-- 
Jeff Aitken                     |     If "Pro" is the opposite of
jaitken@csugrad.cs.vt.edu       |     "Con", then "Congress" must
DEC User's Group Vice President |     be the opposite of "Progress"
Va. Tech Computer Science Dept. |     
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: stank@perrault.unet.com (Stan Knight)
Subject: Re: Sexuality
Organization: Network Equipment Technologies, Redwood City
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 21:36:00 GMT

In article <1hvghvINN9dl@hp-col.col.hp.com> smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes:
>cfthb@ux1.cts.eiu.edu (Howard Black) writes:
>> 
>>     Because sexuality is not a judgement call, while morality is.  There is
>> no reason to intermingle the two.

>Obviously you have done as little to understand or respect others' 
>views on this as people complain straights have about gay issues. 
>You cannot seperate morality and sex in the minds of a lot of 
>people.  

>Walter


I have been following this newsgroup literly since day one. From many of
the post that I have read and from a whole lot of private e-mail discussions
it has become painfully clear that Walter is right on this one. For many
sex and morality seem to be one. It has also become clear that this always 
stems from a single thought. That being that sex is a bad, dirty thing that is
unfortunitly necessary for keeping the race going. I would agree that if sex
is forced or is used to manipulate then that is a bad thing but I have a real
hard time beleiving that sex between consenting adults can be immoral. Most
think that the CHURCH(tm)has always had the same docturne concering sex as
it does today. The current docturne has been in place for about 400 years.
BUT previous to that the docturne was that sex was a gift from GOD that 
should be enjoyed *responsible*. Amazing how a universal biological function
can become entwined with something as abstract as morality ain't it?

Stan Knight
|If sex is sooo bad why did GOD make it feal soooo good?|
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: Education Regarding Alternative Family Units (Re: The Analogy Betwixt Gays & Blacks (Re: Children in Same-gender Families))
Date: 30 Dec 92 04:59:38 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation
Distribution: usa

In article <1hq9obINNqpi@hp-col.col.hp.com> smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes:
>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.  
>
>Hmmmmmm.....what exactly would you teach as 'homosexuality'?  And what 
>about bisexuality?  (or abstinance, for that matter) Should it include 
>a module on bestiality?  Bondage?  etc??  (not trying to be flip, this 
>is a straightforeward question)  

    Bondage should be covered in an advanced class - Sex Ed 201 or
something similar - along with other more complicated sexual
practices.  Bestiality I don't really have an opinion on.

				-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.
From: patm@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Pat Murphy)
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 22:48:23 GMT
Subject: Re: Rush Courts the FAAAR Right
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh



eight commandments....
 
i like that...

anywayz, the discussion is getting far right.  i believe the original
poster was questioning whether rush was pushing christianity in
schools.  i think this can be answered by looking to the horse's
mouth.  in recent radio programs, rush has said that the moral fiber
of this country has gone to pot.  no argument here.  rush has also
said that people have lessened the value of life and that the
way to get this back is to hark back to the judeo-christian ethics
this country was founded on.  *judeo-christian* appears to be
inclusive of the jewish and christian faiths.  this is not so--
judeo-christian is a simple moniker for *christian* beliefs, 
specifically the old & new testaments.  the simple fact that the 
new testament is included means NOT jewish.  hence, rush is pushing
for teaching christianity in schools.  a noble idea, to say the least.
but not one which conforms to american principles of welcoming all
comers and tolerance for difference in faith/beliefs/religion/sexual
preferences...

i do think rush is making up for his recent run-in w/ his religious
audience who had problems w/ his orgasms...  rush... the great
communicator and defender of the first amendment... bending to the
wishes of a vocal few... irony at its best.



peace&cookies,
pjm.
From: stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Morton Downey
Date: 21 Dec 92 02:31:31 GMT
Reply-To: stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce)
Organization: Handmade Designs, Salem, OR, USA

In article <105120031@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM> patm@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM
(Pat Murphy) writes:
|	i think you've identified what is *scary* to liberals
|	and *left-leaning moderates*  that is, its the ultra-
|	conservatives who WANT to force their views on the
|	rest of us...

Who wants to do that and how do they plan to carry to out this nefarious
work (forcing their views on you)?  I haven't heard any plan to force views
on people.  What are you talking about?

...
|	as for scary conservatives--
|	a case in point:  rush has been recently harangued by members
|	of his audience, re: telepathic orgasms.  these people have
|	scolded the man for a rather entertaining piece of radio.
|	IMHO, they just don't get it, as rush was trying to explain.
|	the whole idea behind rush & orgasms is sarcasm. period.  any
|	attempt to... dare i say the word...*censure* rush is wrong.
|	it is this type of conservative [their word, not mine] that
|	scares liberals and left-leaning moderates and, i would
|	guess, you. (just as far left liberals scare me!!).

I didn't hear anyone say that Rush should be censored.  People didn't like
it.  They thought is was in bad taste.  They didn't want him to do it
again.  What is wrong with that?*  Don't they have a right to an opinion?

It seems to me that a lot of what is called "censorship" or "forcing views
on people" is in fact just people expressing opinions you don't want to
hear.

* I thought the spot was funny, especially on radio.  I wasn't offended,
but I understand why people thought the TV spot went too far.  I think most
people were complaining about that not what he did on radio.
-- 
orstcs!opac!bug!stevef          I am the NRA              Steven R. Fordyce
uunet!sequent!ether!stevef         . . .  	        Deer are for Dinner
From: dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Flash! Environmentalists switch off Earth's volcanoes
Date: 21 Dec 92 23:13:50 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder CO

>harryo@cbnewse.cb.att.com (harold.r.holm) writes:
>
>>Well, now you seem to be calming down a bit and resuming your erstwhile
>>more rational debate mode, at least (from what I've seen from your 
>>previous postings).  Anyway, I know that there have been other volcanoes
>>erupting in this century.  There was somewhat of a bang from Mt. St. 
>>Helens in 1980....and another, wasn't it down in Mexico, a couple years
>>later?  And going back to your more that 100 years, didn't a Mt. Krakatoa
>>get a bit upset in the latter part of the 19th century?  Geologic time
>>frames?  Seeming that is within the scope of some 3-4 billion years, I'd
>>say only about 100 doesn't quite qualify....yet you curiosly use that
>>amount to assert unbridled, long-term global warming without end.  Why? 

All volcanic eruptions are not the same.  Its not just the intensity that
varies.  Some blast a lot of material into the air while others pour out
a lot of magma, without much of the atmospheric effect that Pinatubo has
had.  Mt St Helens had huge ash flows into the surrounding forests but
did not expel much matter into the atmosphere.
>


-- 
==============================================================================
A though for the holidays:
   "Wine is living proof that God loves us and likes to see us happy"
	- Benjamin Franklin			dean@vexcel.com
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle)
Subject: Re: Columbus vs Indians (was Re: PC lives)
Organization: Psych Department, Indiana University
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 16:40:48 GMT

dbernard@clesun.Central.Sun.COM (Dave Bernard) writes:
>Likewise, the Aztecs practiced mass human sacrifice on an
>incredible scale, depleting the neighboring, non-Aztec,
>Indian populations.  This is one reason Cortez, with only
>a hundred or two hundred men, was able to topple the Aztec
>empire- support from neighboring tribes, who looked upon
>the brutal Conquistadores as saviors.

    I believe that the documented smallpox epidemic which struck 
Tenochtitlan following the initial expulsion of Cortez's expedition 
may also have played a part. From the standpoint of the Indians, the 
evidence of a pestilence which savaged native populations while leaving 
white Conquistadors untouched must have been a very compelling reason 
not only to support Cortez's invasion but to also convert to Christianity 
in order to gain the protection of the Europeans' obviously more powerful 
God. Unfortunately for the Indians conversion to Christianity wasn't much 
protection from disease, and the estimated pre-1500's native population of 
over 100 million was very quickly reduced to as few as 5 million.

    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 Europeans had no monopoly on 
>the badness that went down in Central America.

    Agreed. Consider also the example of the Apache who considered 
cruelty and treachery as very desirable attributes amongst their warriors.
Not all of the Indians who were displaced were likely to win Nobel Peace 
prizes. Some of them were quite literally barbarians who could not be 
controlled any other way than through the agressive use of force.

--
Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
Psychology Department               Indiana University
nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
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: Lifestyle Choices (was  Re: Sexuality)
Date: 31 Dec 92 06:31:41 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation
Distribution: usa

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:
>>>
>[deleted stuff]
>>
>>>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.
>
>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.

    Smokers are not excluded from public places - _smoking_ is.
If someone were to pass a law that said "No one can have sex on
their table at a restaurant," I think I might be persauded to
be in favor of it.
    In this case, though, it's clearly the action that is forbidden,
not the person.  And that action is potentially as hazardous to
the people around you as firing a loaded gun.


>  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.  

     There is no "right to smoke."  You argument makes no sense.

			-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.
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:12188 alt.politics.clinton:19055 alt.politics.bush:14882 alt.politics.homosexuality:8396 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:10640
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: 23 Dec 1992 07:13:29 GMT
Organization: sgi
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com

In article <Bzp764.2qL@andy.bgsu.edu>, jnomina@andy.bgsu.edu (A.P.K.) writes:
|> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
|> > In article <Bzn89s.87y@andy.bgsu.edu>, jnomina@andy.bgsu.edu (A.P.K.) writes:
|> > |> rj24@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Robert  Johnston) writes:
|> > |> > 
|> > |> > There is NO reason, other than bigotry, to keep homosexuals out of
|> > |> > the military. The question of showering and rooming together is 
|> > |> > quite irrelevant. Do you think that there aren't gays in the military 
|> > |> > now? How many soldiers do you think have been approached  sexually,
|> > |> > in a harassing manner, by another man in the shower? I'll bet you can't 
|> > |> > think of even one case.
|> > |> 
|> > |> While I'm not in on this discussion directly, I was a non-com in
|> > |> the army, and I COULD cite a few cases of such behavior, if you
|> > |> REALLY wanted me to, from not-too-distant experience.  One of my
|> > |> OWN privates once came to me with this very same problem once.
|> > |> Infrequent?  Probably.  Doesn't happen?  Not on your life...
|> > 
|> > If you know of such a case, you must have reported it, otherwise you
|> > would have been in deriliction of duty, no?
|> 
|> No.  That's the nice thing about gaining a little rank, having
|> a little (just a little) personal autonomy in the structure of
|> the military.  Such cases don't always have to be reported, if
|> they're acted upon in a responsible manner by whomever happens
|> to become knowledgable of the situation.  [Note, however, that
|> if an NCO _does_ take charge of handling a potential trouble spot,
|> and screws it up, and gets caught for screwing it up, the $#!+ is
|> really going to hit the fan, and the NCO will become the responsible
|> party.]  Did I report it, or take personal action on it?  I
|> handled the situation myself.
|> 
|> > 
|> > So what happened?   Was the person punished?
|> 
|> What ultimately happened was between four people, myself, the
|> two parties in question, and the NCO in charge of the perpetrator.
|> And as per agreement between the four parties, it ended there.
|> So I'm not at liberty to elaborate on the details in any way
|> way, other than to be able to let you know that the perpetrator
|> was punished in a fair manner at the lowest level we could keep
|> things at.  [Punishment in the military is supposed to be fair,
|> swift, and as private as possible.]

So why should we take this seriously in considering whether Gays
should be allowed in the Armed Forces?

I'm not being flippant.   Why should we?

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