HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gsmith@lauren.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de (Gene W. Smith)
Subject: Re: Sexuality
Organization: IWR, University of Heidelberg, Germany
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 93 18:16:23 GMT

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.

Wrong.  Do you also think homosexuality in animals is a
"lifestyle choice"?  Do you have any facts, arguments or evidence
of any kind for 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.

Your child is taught that slavery is wrong, that women having equal
rights with men is a good thing, and many other evil notions, so
you are too late.

Either no values will be taught in school, or the possibility exists
that the teaching of values will disturb someone.  This is equally
true of facts, and in that case we clearly have decided that at least
some facts should be taught.  If we also decide that some values
should be taught, I would suggest that tolerance is a good one to
include.

Tolerance includes the toleration of people with points of view like
yours, incidentally, a fact which may become increasingly important to
you, since the number of people who think your beliefs are evil and
immoral appears to be growing.

Would you object to teaching facts about homosexuality and letting
students draw their own conclusions?  For instance, if we simply said
that homosexual parents do not appear to have an adverse effect on
their children, would that be OK in a way that Heather and Her Two
Moms is not OK?

-- 
     Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/IWR/Ruprecht-Karls University 
               gsmith@kalliope.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: mike@gordian.com (Michael A. Thomas)
Subject: Re: Lifestyle Choices and Secular Reasoning 
Organization: Gordian; Costa Mesa, CA
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 03:20:10 GMT

Only one comment:

In article <C0B5vL.14I@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>, kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (kellmeyer steven l) writes:
> It was only after the publication of Darwin's work, combined with Marx's
> "Das Kapital" that society began differentiating scientific knowledge
> from religious knowledge.  Before the 1850, there was arguably no 
> difference between the two in terms of cultural perceptions.

  [Mouth drops open in wide eyed astonishment]

   *Only* after *Marx* *and* *Darwin*??? Not Copernicus? Not Galileo?

  [disbelief still palpable, wonders if this is really serious...]
-- 

		Michael Thomas	(mike@gordian.com)
	"I don't think Bambi Eyes will get you that flame thrower..."  
		-- Hobbes to Calvin
		USnail: 20361 Irvine Ave Santa Ana Heights, Ca,	92707-5637
		PaBell: (714) 850-0205 (714) 850-0533 (fax)
From: kgirodias@azcc.arizona.edu
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Carol Moseley Braun on CSPAN
Date: 5 Jan 93 20:14:28 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona UNIX Users Group


Did anyone see Carol Mosely Braun on CSPAN the other day? I turned to it
some where in the middle. The press was really questioning her about
sexual harrasment, the selling of her home, cars she bought, many things.
It must have been a long press conference because she requested a chair.
I was not able to see it to the end. What gives, is she in trouble
already? Sounded like her campaign manager was accused of sexual harrasment.

Does anyone know what is going on??

Ken
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: sichermn@csulb.edu (Jeff Sicherman)
Subject: Re: Lifestyle Choices and Secular Reasoning
Organization: Cal State Long Beach
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 09:22:15 GMT

In article <C0AzLt.DD2@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (kellmeyer steven l) writes:
>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?
>
>Millions should be used in reference to those wars started since 
>"the Age of Reason".  No matter how you add the numbers, more people
>have been killed by the judicious application of science in support
>of secular reasons for killing than have been killed by all wars of
>religion combined.

  You should choose your classifications more carefully.

   If you consider dogma-based philosophies, which admit no logical
challenge or doubt as to precepts, as a synonym for religion, then
most of those killings were religiously inspired; just not by one
of your most acceptable religions. And those religious zealots have
been more than happy and willing to use the fruits of science in
the fulfillment of their goals.




-- 
Jeff Sicherman
up the net without a .sig
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: greg_bradt@msmgate.mrg.uswest.com (Greg Bradt aka The Lensman)
Subject: Re: Your own words, of course != bigot
XXXDate: Mon, 4 Jan 93 22:11:36 GMT
XUserAgent: Nuntius v1.1.1d16
XXXMessageID: <A76E0428970C0614@greg_bradt.mrg.uswest.com>
Organization: US West Marketing Resources
NntpPostingHost: greg_bradt.mrg.uswest.com
Date: 04 Jan 93 22:12:39 GMT

In article <C0ACKI.9xw@NeoSoft.com> Jim Shirreffs, jpsb@NeoSoft.com writes:
>and is of course punishable. Secular reasoning has been that sodomy 
>(butt f*****g) is immoral, that is why there are laws
>against it. 

Up to this point, Jim, you were doing quite well at presenting a perfectly
logical and reasonable argument for obeying the law.  Unfortunately, that
was not the question.  The question was: Why is homosexuality wrong.  The
fact that it is against the law is not sufficient or even supportive of that
position.  There are many things that are wrong, but perfectly legal. 
Similarly, there are many things that are against the law, but are not
morally or ethically wrong... sodomy being only one such instance.

>People take quite seriously the secular immorality of homosexual
>sex. Even Washington D.C. has laws against sodomy. The reason these laws are
>not enforced is that people take an individuals right to privacy more 
>seriously. Try engaging in sodomy at the town park and see what happens.

Interestingly, it is the exact same thing that would happen if you engaged
in heterosexual fornication.

>Does the fact that the overwhelming majority of society feel that 
>engaging in homosexual sex is criminal make it secularly immoral?  You bet
>is does, by definition

Morality by consensus? A dangerous definition, there.  Even if your
"overwhelmingly" were any near correct, it takes more than majority rule to
justify it on ethical grounds.  (Incidentally, I prefer ethical to secularly
moral... the latter seems to be an oxymoron).

>. Will sodomy always be criminal (immoral) in our
>society? Who knows, but until laws against sodomy are repealed, sodomy is 
>secularly immoral, period.

Let us never, as a society, be led down the path of equating morality with
legality.  

>There is not a law against being a homosexual, hence being a homosexual is
>not secuarly immoral. There is no law that singles out homosexuals. 

There is in Colorado.

>If I am right that homosexual sex is wrong, am I still a bigot?

To anyone that you were able to persuade that legal=moral... no, you would
not be a bigot.  To anyone who believes that it is unethical for an
individual (or the law) to treat someone different because you don't approve
of their choice of sex/life partners, I'm afraid you are.

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,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: mykes@shell.portal.com (mike myke schwartz)
Subject: Re: Lifestyle Choices and Secular Reasoning
Followup-To: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
Organization: Portal Communications Company
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL7]
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 13:47:00 GMT

Tom Perigrin (tip@lead.aichem.arizona.edu) wrote:
: In article <1993Jan6.201444.17666@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
: >
: >There is no question that our founders were extremely Christian.
: >
: >Ted
: 
: Yup.  And yet they were wise enough not to try to force their religion
: on everybody else.

Unfortunately, there is a new religion called secular humanism that is
clearly trying to force their religion (or lack of...) on everyone.

cheers.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: root@june.cmp.rpi.edu (J.R. Ordon)
Subject: Re: Chelsea's school ...
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 17:18:09 GMT

In article <tinkess.726424634@cambridge> tinkess@cambridge (Randall Tinkess) writes:
>
>Get realistic! There is very little comparison between the public and
>private school environment. School populations are usually smaller as are
>class sizes in private schools. Also, the general environment is much more
>controlled. I doubt that crack dealers are hiding in the fire escapes of 
helsea's new school. All of these factors and many more will definitely
>lessen the level of disruption caused by a studuent such as Chelsea. 


Gee that's a nice description of Private schools, wouldn't it be nice if
every child regardless of income to go to these schools that don't have
"the crack dealers hiding in the fire escapes", as you put it.

You just made when of the best arguements FOR school choice that I've seen,
thank you...


>You obviously don't remember the circus atmosphere that surrounded Amy
>Carter when she attended public school. All of the publicity and 
>attention had a negative effect on  Miss Carter's school years. This
>is a fact that she and her father have attested to. 
>
>I see no advantage to putting a member of the first family at risk to
>satisfy conservative whiners. And if you don't think there is any risk 
>I suggest you look closely at the D.C. school system. 
>
>The school crisis in this country will not be solved nor changed by 
>where Chelsea Clinton studies. 
>-- 

But you forget a large part of Clinton's Administration is built on
Symbolisim, just look at his Cabinet. We'll see if those appointments
will solve or change any of the problems of Minorities and women.

Clinton campaigned as a strong supporter of Public Education, except I 
guess, when comes to himself or his daughter. He supports school choice
only for those that can afford it.

As for Jimmy Carter's opinions on his daughters schooling, it sounds like a
little "Monday morning quarterbacking" to me.


------------------------------------
J.R. Ordon
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: Re: using the bible to advance bigotry
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 22:04:45 GMT

In article <casivils.726097308@node_508ba> casivils@lescsse.jsc.nasa.gov (craig sivils) writes:
>In <C07DBw.1oE@math.uwaterloo.ca> shallit@graceland.uwaterloo.ca (Jeffrey Shallit) writes:
>
>Whats next, if we can be intolerant toward people for what the beleive but
>not what they do, whats next.
>
>Why is wrong to rob a grave, have sex with animals, children, would it be wrong
>to spike a pregnant mothers drink with RU42 (or whatever it is), why is
>blackmail wrong and taxation not?  Fact is that we have to make moral decisions
>and when it comes down to it, you have to assume something.  If I choose to 
>believe the Bible and find it to be a workable basis for me then why don't you
>practice some of that toleration
>
>                                 Craig
>
>Why ask why?

Please be careful when you edit messages -- I did not write the material
above.

Jeff Shallit


Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: hhm@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (herschel.h.mayo)
Subject: Re: Carol Moseley Braun on CSPAN
Organization: Chicago Home for the Morally Challenged
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 16:26:44 GMT
Summary: whut!

In article <1993Jan5.131428.1@azcc.arizona.edu>, kgirodias@azcc.arizona.edu writes:
> 
> Did anyone see Carol Mosely Braun on CSPAN the other day? I turned to it
> some where in the middle. The press was really questioning her about
> sexual harrasment, the selling of her home, cars she bought, many things.
> It must have been a long press conference because she requested a chair.
> I was not able to see it to the end. What gives, is she in trouble
> already? Sounded like her campaign manager was accused of sexual harrasment.
> 
> Does anyone know what is going on??


Yes. Her campaign manager, and companion is being accused of sexual harrasment
by several members of her campaign staff. She denies it, and claims that the 
charges are false, and the work of "disgruntled employees"  Seems odd to me
that she was out for Clarence Thomas' blood just a few months ago because
she was willing to believe Anita Hill, who at that time was a poor, innocent,
put-upon, woman and not a "disgruntled employee" as others claimed.  She 
also sold her house at a very huge profit far above its market value, took a
long and expensive vacation to Africa, with her campaign manager, flying on 
the Concorde. She then bought an expensive limo, and moved into one of
the most expensive apartment buildings in Chicago, on Lakeshore drive. Yep,
I'm glad to see that she is just one of the common folks who voted for her.


                                                      Larry Mayo

Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: wbralick@afit.af.mil (Will Bralick)
Subject: Re: Chelsea's school ...
Organization: Self-similar
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 20:03:58 GMT

In article <tinkess.726424634@cambridge> tinkess@cambridge (Randall Tinkess) writes:
| 
| I see no advantage to putting a member of the first family at risk to
| satisfy conservative whiners. And if you don't think there is any risk 
| I suggest you look closely at the D.C. school system. 

Ah, but think of the symbolic importance of such a gesture.  Risking
one's only child to stand up proud and tall with Americans everywhere
and say, "I'm with you, Mr. and/or Ms. and/or Mr. Mainstream_America.  
I believe in the public education system of this country.  I am committed 
to the public education system of this country."  

I do not blame Gov. Clinton, either.  It is hypocrisy that I find
objectionable.  The rich and famous Clintons of the world can afford to
send their children to private, elite academies, while the middle and
lower classes are stuck with the drug- and violence-infested public
schools.  


Regards,

-- 

Will Bralick			          Speaking _only_ for myself.

Standard disclaimers apply.            Void where prohibitted by law.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: tomboy@netcom.com (Thomas Miller)
Subject: Re: Lifestyle Choices (was Re: Sexuality)
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 07:09:36 GMT

First of all, homosexuals pose no greater a threat to blood donations than any- one else.  All human beings who donate blood get the same test which is not
discriminant on the basis of sexual orientation.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: proof of the need for better sex education
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 13:00:32 GMT

krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
->The woman hung out a sign that said "baby welcome" 
->when she had sex.

oh my. this is one good reason people should study sex
education before talking about abortion.

Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:12913 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:11405 alt.politics.clinton:19543 alt.politics.bush:15448 alt.politics.homosexuality:8886
From: k206027@smog.DKRZ-Hamburg.DE (Bakayaroo Banzai)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: using the bible to advance bigotry
Date: 4 Jan 93 15:24:37 GMT
Organization: Deutsches Klimarechenzentrum GmbH, Hamburg

In article <1993Jan3.232338.29531@news.columbia.edu> rj24@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Robert  Johnston) writes:
>In article <casivils.726097308@node_508ba> casivils@lescsse.jsc.nasa.gov (craig sivils) writes:
>>In <C07DBw.1oE@math.uwaterloo.ca> shallit@graceland.uwaterloo.ca (Jeffrey Shallit) writes:
>>
>>Whats next, if we can be intolerant toward people for what the beleive but
>>not what they do, whats next.
>>
>>Why is wrong to rob a grave, have sex with animals, children, would it be wrong
>>to spike a pregnant mothers drink with RU42 (or whatever it is), why is
>>blackmail wrong and taxation not?  Fact is that we have to make moral decisions
>>and when it comes down to it, you have to assume something.  If I choose to 
>>believe the Bible and find it to be a workable basis for me then why don't you
>>practice some of that toleration
>>
>>                                 Craig
>>
>>Why ask why?
>
>The reason that many tolerant people don't wish to accept your belief in
>your bible is that your bible fosters intolerance. It is a misogynistic,
                                       ^^^^^^^^^^^
"Love your neighbor as yourself"

"If your enemy is hungry give him something to eat"

"Judge not, lest you also be judged"

"Without Love I am nothing"

>homophobic book. It preaches intolerance of all that do not believe in it.
>Sometimes it does so rather directly, as with all the smiting that goes on 
>in the old testament. Sometimes it is somewhat more subtle, as when saying
>that non-believers will go to hell. Why should I put up with your belief
>that I am inferior to a christian? If you don't believe that, then have
           ^^^^^^^^
"There is no one who does good, not one"

"All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God"

>some backbone and reject the church.
                   ^^^^^^
Not all of us are labouring under such a warped and distorted view of
the Bible as you seem to be. 

*******************************************************************************
*  "Supernatural, perhaps...Baloney, perhaps not" - Bela Lugosi               *
*******************************************************************************
Matt Marchese	    The opinions expressed here are not those of my employer, *
Cray Research  	    my wife, my church, or myself...But they are the opinions *
DKRZ                of Elvis as revealved to me through the medium of my pet  *
Hamburg, Germany    hamster, Lee Harvey Oswald...                             *
*******************************************************************************
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:13134 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:11700 alt.politics.clinton:19689 alt.politics.bush:15612 alt.politics.homosexuality:9037
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: Lifestyle Choices (was  Re: Sexuality)
Date: 6 Jan 1993 12:47:14 GMT
Organization: Colorado Springs IT Center
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: fajita19.cs.itc.hp.com

glen@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Glen Sonnenberg) writes:
> I saw a show on PBS that showed an example of gang rape in a certain species
> of whales.  Three whales trap a female and each take turns having sex with
> her.  Does this mean that we should accept gang rape "because it is seen
> in nature"?

Yeah, ever see ducks?  Go to your local duck pond in the spring...the males 
tend to gang up on and nearly drown the females...

Walter

Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara)
Subject: Re: Sexuality
Date: 06 Jan 93 22:27:23 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation
Distribution: usa

In article <1993Jan5.230828.29316@asl.dl.nec.com> dillhoff@aslws01.asl.dl.nec.com (Doug Dillhoff) writes:
>In article <1993Jan05.180438.5289@microsoft.com> fritzs@microsoft.com (Fritz Sands) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec31.181358.17099@asl.dl.nec.com> dillhoff@aslws01.asl.dl.nec.com (Doug Dillhoff) writes:
>>| 
>>| That is the whole problem. Teachers in sex ed. and drug ed. classes are
>>| told not to tell children what is right and wrong, to just present the
>>| facts. This has the opposite effect of what they intend.
>>
>>This assumes that the purpose of sex ed and drug ed classes is the 
>>spread of propoganda rather than information.
>>
>>I expect you to start a chant of "ignorance is strength" any time now.
>>
>
>Please read more carefully. I did not say we should not have  those
>types of classes. The problem is with the majority of the programs
>that are out there. One of the more popular drug prevention programs
>in the nation is called (CHARLIE). This is for grades (1,3,5). They
>spend about 10% of the time on drug education. They do not say that
>drugs are wrong and instruct the teachers to keep their opinions out
>of any discussions the children are having. When they teach decision
>making skills, one of the life scenarios discussed with the children
>concerns a married woman(A) who is having an affair with another
>woman's husband(B).  The husband of (A) then shoots (B). A paraphrase
>of the description of LSD is something like: a feeling of euphoria,
>a sense of great wisdom and is not habit forming. The child is never
>told of the negative aspects of the drug. The same type
>of garbage is used in sex ed. classes. This is off the
>topic, however, I would recommend you do some research on the types
>of programs used in your school district.

    I see - you want more than facts to be taught in those classes -
you want opinions as well.  You just get pissed off when they
aren't _your_ opinions.

				-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