HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: glen@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Glen Sonnenberg)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: How many gays are there anyway?
Date: 18 Dec 92 15:55:13 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson AZ

In article <1gsigfINN4fu@cronkite.Central.Sun.COM> dbernard@clesun.Central.Sun.COM writes:
>Felix Gorney writes:
>
>>From what I understand, this number is supposed to be apx. 10%. 
>>However, that "scientific" estimate is probably high. From what the 
>>media says on the topic, one is given the impression that the number 
>>is close to 50%.
>
>The 10% figure goes back to the early 50s, from the Kinsey report, a
>report now generally considered so flawed, partisan, and unscientific,
>that no one gives it any real credibility these days.  More recent
>figures suggest 2 or 3 % is more realistic, but I can't even say what 
>those figures are based upon.

I have a friend who took a psychology class last semester that dealt with all sorts
of sexual topics and she quoted her prof/book as saying around 2% of any population
is homosexual.  Also, I remember seeing a scientific report on TV a while back 
that discussed some evidence that the percentage of mice that were homosexual in a 
given population was proportional to stress/density that the population was subjected
to.  Just my 2 cents.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: jlinder@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Jeffrey S Linder)
Subject: Re: Homophobe: A definition please!
Organization: The Ohio State University
 A. McAngus) writes:
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 15:07:38 GMT

The privilege of obtaining "protected minority" status.  The privilege of 
having legally recognized marriages.
These are just two.  I'm sure there are more.

JSL.
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:12456 alt.politics.clinton:19212 alt.politics.bush:15039 alt.politics.homosexuality:8535 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:10874
From: borden@head-cfa.harvard.edu (Dave Borden)
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: 30 Dec 92 15:47:24 GMT
Reply-To: borden@m5.harvard.edu
Distribution: usa
Organization: Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, Cambridge, MA,  USA

In article <1992Dec30.042419.2105@anasazi.com> john@anasazi.com writes:

>In article <1992Dec29.034601.28832@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov> fogarty@sir-c.jpl.nasa.gov (Tim Fogarty) writes:
>]In article <1992Dec29.004539.5683@anasazi.com>, john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore) writes:

>]Since there is no RIGHT to participate in the military, why was it important
>]to integrate blacks into the military in the 50s and not important to 
>]integrate gays into the military in the 90s ?

>Because blacks constitute a significant segment of the population;

Gays constitute about ten percent of the population.  This is a very
significant percentage.

>because blackness is not a behavioral trait.

So is Christianity.  What's the difference?  I don't accept the precepts of
Christianity, but I respect the right to practice it.  I am not inclined
towards homosexuality, but I respect people's right to practice it.  Some of
my best friends are Christian; some of my best friends are gay, some of my
best friends are both Christian and gay.  And I don't mind at all!  It's
entirely up to them.

   - Dave Borden
     borden@m5.harvard.edu
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: howard@netcom.com (Howard Berkey)
Subject: Re: Lifestyle Choices and Secular Reasoning
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 06:01:04 GMT

In article <1993Jan3.033411.29928@news.columbia.edu> rj24@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Robert  Johnston) writes:
>In article <1993Jan2.235727.5838@netcom.com> howard@netcom.com (Howard Berkey) 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:
>>>>> In article <1992Dec29.233922.2539@netcom.com> harp@netcom.com (Gregory O. Harp) writes:
>>>>> 
>>>>All people are asking is that unless you can come up with some
>>>>*secular* reason for why their lifestyle choice is bad, you grant
>>>>them the same rights they are willing to grant you: the right to
>>>>live their life without persecution.
>>>
>>>Why is *secular* reasoning superior to religious reasoning? 
>>>
>>
>>Because not everyone gives a damn about religion.  The majority of the
>>world population isn't Christian.  (Although Catholicism is the
>>largest single religion).  Besides, 'religious reasoning' sounds like
>>an oxymoron.  
>>
>>Andrew Jackson had a lot to say about avoiding religious arguments
>>pertaining to legislation.
>>
>>> [loads of opinionated attacks on secular reasoning deleted]
>>
>>Look, whatever your opinion of secular reasoning, religiously
>>justified 'reasoning' has a pretty poor history as well.  The Catholic
>>church is responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths alone.  Look
>                                       ^^^^^^^^^
>>at Hezbollah for a good example of religious 'reasoning'.
>>
>>-Howard
>>
>>
>Shouldn't that be millions?

I doubt it.  At least not hundreds of millions. Maybe millions.  
Hundreds of thousands, definantly, though.  One particular example
comes to mind:  The phrase "Kill `em all, let God sort 'em out" was
taken from a line uttered by the Papal advisor to the leader of an
expeditionary force during the crusade of the Albigensian Heresy.
When the commander asked the advisor who should be spared in a town
they were about to raze, the Pope's mouthpiece said, "Kill them all.
The Lord will find his Faithful."  The town, and all it's 15,000 or so
inhabitants, was destroyed.  A kind of funny thing about this attack
was that the main focus of this crusade was to wipe out a sect whose
sole crime was that they were becoming the dominant form of
Christianity in the area (i.e. invading the catholic's 'turf').  They
in essence rejected the Trinity idea and thus were destroyed by the
catholics.  


And yes, I can provide references.

-Howard
-- 
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Howard Berkey                       			   howard@netcom.com
Did you hear about the dyslexic devil worshipper?
He sold his soul to Santa.				-Herb Caen
... .. ...   ... .. ...   ... .. ...    ... .. ...   ... .. ...   ... .. ...
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle)
Subject: Re: Rush on the Right?
Organization: Psych Department, Indiana University
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 15:03:17 GMT

(Brad Green) writes:
>When he brought up the Ten Commandments, he had a valid point.  Can you
>name one other set of principles that would solve ALL the world's problems
>better, if everyone just believed in them?

    The Tao Te Ching?

>Granted, they are religious ideas, but they are also the moral foundation 
>for just about all of our laws, and make sense.

    I thought that our system of laws was ultimately derived from the 
Code of Hammurabi (circa 1600 BC).

>He was right on, trouble is, too many people don't listen, they just
>write what he said off as the ravings  of a radical.

    So maybe, as Rush was so fond of saying about David Duke, his message 
is valid but he is not the best messenger to lend credence to the ideas?

--
Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
Psychology Department               Indiana University
nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
From: dbernard@clesun.Central.Sun.COM (Dave Bernard)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Columbus and Indians: Whats the point?
Date: 29 Dec 1992 17:16:51 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems
Distribution: world
Reply-To: dbernard@clesun.Central.Sun.COM
NNTP-Posting-Host: clesun.central.sun.com

In article 1hpprnINN88@mirror.digex.com, car@access.digex.com (Mr. Blue) writes:
>
>Why does this subject get debated so much? What is the ultimate goal
>of those who bring it up? That we should give back the land? That we
>are all evil eurocentric racist homophobic bigots? It's history, it
>happened, and it's gone on since man came out of the trees. Let it be.
>An Politically Correct types out there feel free to give your house up
>to an Indian, or an Aztec. Why dont you really say what you mean: Our
>ancestors were brutal conquerors so now we should feel guilty and give
>minorities preferential treatment over the great satan, the white
>European Male?????  Isnt that what this is all about?
>

The effect is to put down the victor, and to elevate the loser.  If a culture
has dominated, it must be evil.  If a culture has been subdued, it was ipso
facto superior.  The dominator should feel shame and guilt, the subdued has
automatic moral superiority.  Note that this is an offshoot of the fair idea of
giving the persecuted an equal chance, but carried to an extreme extreme.

	Dave


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 20:53:37 GMT

In article <1992Dec31.043531.4304@microsoft.com> philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
>In article <1992Dec30.191743.7958@asl.dl.nec.com> dillhoff@aslws01.asl.dl.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? 
>
>     Let's look at it from a different angle:  Should it be illegal
>for people to eat vegetables, simply because you are a meat eater?
>Should employers be able to fire vegetarians for not eating meat?
>Should school children be taught that vegetarians are abnormal?

And must we have a law to prevent each and every one of these incidents of
descrimination?  As I pointed out before, Smokers have been fired for
smoking on their own time, at home, in their car, etc.  If employers can
get away with that (some have, some haven't), can Hormel firing vegetarians
be far behind?

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

>-- 
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>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
From: greg_bradt@msmgate.mrg.uswest.com (Greg Bradt)
Subject: Re: Secular Humanism a Religion? (was:JESUS IS THE REASON FOR THE
XUserAgent: Nuntius v1.1b3
Organization: US West Marketing Resources
NntpPostingHost: greg_bradt.mrg.uswest.com
Date: 30 Dec 92 20:46:50 GMT

In article <1hsbrkINNhtd@cronkite.Central.Sun.COM> Dave Bernard,
dbernard@clesun.Central.Sun.COM writes:
>In article 8130@uswmrg.mrg.uswest.com.mrg.uswest.com, 
>greg_bradt@msmgate.mrg.uswest.com (Greg Bradt) writes:
>>In article <1hq0boINNgqm@cronkite.Central.Sun.COM> Dave Bernard,
>>dbernard@clesun.Central.Sun.COM writes:
>>>Note that Secular Humanism has been recognized as a religion
>>>by the US Supreme Court.
>>
>>What an absurd idea!   Just how did this "recognition" come about?
>>
>In 1964, I believe, a conscientious objector to the draft protested that,
>on religious grounds, he should receive an exemption.  His stated religion
>was "Secular Humanist," and the case was taken to the US Supreme Court,
which
>recognized this as a religion.

Interesting.  I'll have to look into this further.  Knowing what I do about
"secular humanism", especially as it existed in the 60's, I imagine that
what the court actually established was that you don't have to be a "member"
of a religion (clearly, since there was and, to my knowledge, still is no
Secular Humanist Church) to have religious convictions that would exempt you
from the draft.

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:12708 alt.politics.clinton:19405 alt.politics.bush:15278
From: albrigh@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (thomas g albright)
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: 21 Dec 92 22:59:29 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: The Cabal

In article <dlhanson.22.724971252@nap.amoco.com> dlhanson@nap.amoco.com (David
L. Hanson) writes:
...
>Astute readers will notice on my previous post that I forgot the all
>important NOT.  Be assured that there are no sodomites, socialists, or
>any species of liberal in our home. Only fundamental Christian parents
>teaching the children to love their enemies and to hate their enemies'
>wretched sins.
...

Sounds like a BIG Freudian slip to me!  Who do YOU think you're kidding?
Skeletons in the closet?

:-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-)
|                                   \                                         |
| INTERNET: albrigh@ucs.indiana.edu  \    I believe in reincarnation, and     |
|   BITNET: albrigh@iubacs           /\   I'm coming back as a pansy.  AGAIN! |
|                                   /  \                                      |
(-: (-: (-: (-: (-: (-: (-: (-: (-: (-: (-: (-: (-: (-: (-: (-: (-: (-: (-: (-:
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 00:46:13 GMT

entropy@world.std.com (The Entropic one) 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:
>>
>>The 
>>country founded upon atheism and a belief in man no longer exists.

>Russia was founded upon marxism not atheism. Atheism generally implies
>critical thought, something which Russia wasn't famous for.

Bzzzt.  Thanks for playing.  To begin with, I was speaking of the USSR.
Russia *was* founded upon a belief in God, and on a precursory idea of
the divine right of kings, in fact.  The USSR, however, was explicitly
founded as an atheistic country.  Try reading a little Lenin sometime.
It's dry as hell, but it's also atheism at its best. 

>>>>What about infibulation, the practice of mutilating female genitalia
>>>>that is common in Africa?  Secularly speaking, we have no right to 
>>>>condemn another culture's practices. 
>>
>>>Who said that? 
>>
>>Secular logic.

>Strange the secular ethical systems I know of say nothing about this.
>How do you derive this from utilitarian ethics?

I didn't say I derived it from utilitarian ethics.  I said I derived it
from secular (i.e. non-religiously based) logic.  What does utilitarian
ethics have to do with it, other than that utilitarian ethics is one of
many subsets of a secularly-based logical system.?  

>-- 
>------  Linux, Religion, and electronic shopping all in one place!
>\    / Repent of Bean eating, MS-DOS, OS/2, and windows NT, no sales man
> \  / will hassle you, no priest will sacrifice you. Free 9600 baud download.
>  \/ Call the Virtual World Information Systems BBS at 508-793-9568        

Steve Kellmeyer
-- 

Steve Kellmeyer 
kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: cfthb@ux1.cts.eiu.edu (Howard Black)
Subject: Re: Sexuality
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 14:55:28 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Eastern Illinois University

In article <1i0106INNfbm@hp-col.col.hp.com> smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes:

[wrt the separation of morality from sex]

>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...

    I guess it's the preoccupation with the sex-morality link that offends
me.  I try to lead a moral life, and agree with kids should be taught to
live life from a moral standpoint.  However, when the moral=het and
immoral=gay equation enters the picture, the whole credibility of the
person making the claim disappears.

    My moral code is along the lines of "live-and-let-live unless it harms
you".
-- 
   ******************************************************************
     Howard Black                             cfthb@ux1.cts.eiu.edu
     Department of Chemistry                  Eastern Illinois Univ. 
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 04:35:31 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation
Distribution: usa

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? 

     Let's look at it from a different angle:  Should it be illegal
for people to eat vegetables, simply because you are a meat eater?
Should employers be able to fire vegetarians for not eating meat?
Should school children be taught that vegetarians are abnormal?


>>Yet I believe that schools should teach that Christians, meat-eaters,
>>and monogamists are peple who may hold different views from the
>>student, but who should not be persecuted because of this.
>>
>>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.
>
>I don't think anyone can live a life without persecution.

    That doesn't mean we can't try to minimize the amount of
that persecution.
    Just out of curiosity, how have you been persecuted?


>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.

    So is hugging, kissing, petting, oral sex, anal sex, vaginal
sex with a condom (or any other form of birth control), and celibacy.
    You also seem to forget that a person can be gay and not
ever have sex.


> Homosexual sex uses a human output device (waste
>disposal) as an input device.

     Parts of the body have multiple uses.  For instance, the
mouth is used for the ingestion of food, and also for breathing.
Similary, the anus can be used for elimination of solid waste,
and also for sexual gratification - it contains the prostrate
gland which, when stimulated, can cause intense sexual pleasure.
If anal sex isn't "natural", then why does it feel good?


> This is not natural and therefore
>should not be considered normal and should not be taught as an
>alternate lifestyle. 

     You haven't shown that it isn't natural.  Would you like
to try again?

				-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: 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: 31 Dec 92 06:21:46 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation
Distribution: usa

In article <1hsme2INNdu@hp-col.col.hp.com> smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes:
>
>Yeah, you're probobly right there.  My wife and I were talking about that a couple 
>of weeks ago, (diff between gay/bi) and her feelings were that gay people didn't 
>'choose' to be gay, they just 'are'; whereas bi people chose to be bi, because 
>they like sex and it offers them more chances for it.  ie, homosexuality as a 
>case-of-being and orientation, and bisexuality is a choice made to offer more 
>chances for sex.   Her view was more sympathetic (for lack of a better word) 
>to homosexuals than to bisexuals.  

    Your wife doesn't understand bisexuality.  Not a bit.  Bisexuality
is not about getting laid more often, at least not for most people.


>Looking at it from that angle, I can see where there would be a difference 
>between teaching same-sex families, vs teaching families where one or both 
>of the parents are active bisexuals.

     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?


>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.


>  Active homosexual parents 
>can be monogamous, but by definition, the appearance is that active 
>bisexual parents cannot, unless they are married to a male and a female. 
>So teaching bisexual families, unlike homosexual families, would drag in 
>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.


>And since *practice* was involved in bisexuality, I added whatever other
>...alities I could...which apparently set some off...that wasnt the intent. 

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


>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?

				-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