HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cfthb@ux1.cts.eiu.edu (Howard Black)
Subject: Re: Education Regarding Alternative Family Units (Re: The Analogy Betwixt Gays & Blacks (Re: Children in Same-gender Families))
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 16:15:52 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Eastern Illinois University

In article <1992Dec29.150908.2994@porthos.cc.bellcore.com> wgb3@pyuxf.uucp (25336-buoni) writes:
>
>  When the school teaches that
>homosexuality as a valid lifestyle, it operates in direct conflict with the 
>values I attempt to instill within my children.  

    Perhaps this is a problem of semantics.  Homosexuality *is* a valid
lifestyle, and gay couples can be happy, raise children, be outstanding
citizens, etc.  This is a fact.  To teach facts is what school is all
about.  To say something exists is not to condone it.
    It sounds more like you only want your kids to be told that
homosexuality exists if you can be sure it's painted in a negative light at
the same time.  I sure hope that none of your kids turns out to be gay -
what a parental message you're giving them.  Attitudes like this are
reflected in the very high suicide rate for gay teens.
 
>  In my view, teaching my children views which are in direct conflict
>with our (my wife and I) values is a violation of this respect. 

    See above.  If it's a "view" that gays exist in our society, so
thoroughly intermingled that you know many of us without even being aware
of it, your definition of "view" is weird.  Galileo was shunned by the
church for saying that the sun revolves around the earth.  Didn't make it
any less so, and, in the light of modern society, just makes the church of
the time look stupid.

>Bill Buoni
>my opinions are my own and do NOT represent those of my employer!

    Well, *that's* a relief.

-- 
   ******************************************************************
     Howard Black                             cfthb@ux1.cts.eiu.edu
     Department of Chemistry                  Eastern Illinois Univ. 
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:12415 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:10831 alt.politics.clinton:19188 alt.politics.bush:15000 alt.politics.homosexuality:8508
From: cfthb@ux1.cts.eiu.edu (Howard Black)
Subject: Re: Sexuality
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 01:42:01 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Eastern Illinois University

In article <1992Dec31.000514.21542@anasazi.com> briand@anasazi.com (Brian Douglass) writes:
>
>I don't know which is right, lifestyle or biological.  Maybe both, maybe
>neither, the evidence is still just too evenly split.  So to argue one side
>or the other is just an exercise in futility, as there is no right or wrong
>answer.

    Actually, I also feel the answer is irrelevant (that is, the nature vs.
nurture question).  Neither is justification of legislated bigotry or
judgement calls.

-- 
   ******************************************************************
     Howard Black                             cfthb@ux1.cts.eiu.edu
     Department of Chemistry                  Eastern Illinois Univ. 
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle)
Subject: Re: Kicked out of a.f.d-q?  I don't think so
Organization: Psych Department, Indiana University
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 16:20:13 GMT

sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>I've seen posts in this newsgroup from both Chaney/Hall and Schmidling
>in the last week.  I don't think that they've "gone" anywhere.

    Well, I must admit that I ignore a great deal of the traffic that 
comes through here, but I can't recall any posts by Steve for a week or 
so and none from Jack for over a month. I don't suppose you'd be willing 
to quote me an NNTP header from one of them? (No, I suppose not, since 
you don't even quote the text of articles to which you're responding...)

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

    This is the paragraph that I really wanted to respond to, because it's 
not the first time that you've made the assumption that my motivation for 
mentioning Chaney and Schmidling was that I want them to be welcomed 
everywhere. I really thought that my whole point all along in this thread 
was that these two guys were prime examples of people who are *NOT* welcomed 
everywhere and that on that basis it's not too hard to see how Ted could 
also get into the same predicament. 

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

>I don't much care for people who can dish it out but not take it.  You
>may feel differently.  

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

--
Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
Psychology Department               Indiana University
nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
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: Sexuality
Date: 31 Dec 1992 17:21:02 GMT
Organization: Colorado Springs IT Center
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: fajita19.cs.itc.hp.com

rj24@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Robert  Johnston) writes:
> IMNSHO, harmfull to our comminty not to teach general tolerance of all
> people, to all people. 

You know, I've been saying the same thing, that tolerance is what 
should be taught; for all people.  And I got flamed good for saying 
it; that "tolerance" is a 4-letter word to gay people.  What's the 
story? 

Walter

Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
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 00:09:10 GMT

teddybur@netcom.com (John Sanger) writes:

>It is very obvious that Steve Kellmeyer is trying to define all reason and
>logic according to his own terms or those of some societal click called
>"deconstructionists". His posts do not lend any real information to the
>thread but only take up space.



>Ciao!
>	John S. :^)
>	teddybur@netcom.com
>__

That is, John has no idea how to counter my points.
  Thanks for playing, John.

Steve
-- 

Steve Kellmeyer 
kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: briand@anasazi.com (Brian Douglass)
Subject: Re: Showering in the Military (Re: Gays in the Military..what nobody is talking about: )
Organization: Anasazi Inc Phx Az USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 18:34:39 GMT

In article <1992Dec22.171153.18004@news.columbia.edu> rj24@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Robert  Johnston) writes:
>In article <Bzn89s.87y@andy.bgsu.edu> jnomina@andy.bgsu.edu (A.P.K.) writes:
>>rj24@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Robert  Johnston) writes:
>>> 
[deleted stuff]
>>> 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...
>>
>>Jim
>>
>Let me clarify. 
>
[deleted stuff]
>
>Second, I did not mean to imply that such incedents never occur, only
>that they are rare, and that the author of the post I responded to, as
>well as most rabid homophobes, probably has no experience or evidence
>of any such incedent.

Just as you now attempt to limit the scope of your argument by saying you
only contend the original poster doesn't have evidence of homosexual
harassment, what evidence or experience do you have that it doesn't?

I would also like to note that SSgt Pannacia (?) who openly admitted to
being gay on Good Morning America and was discharged from the Air Force,
was given an Honorable discharge, at least according to the local
newspaper.

There was a time that a gay soldier would have been sent to the stockade or
brig for admitting homosexuality.  Only a few years ago, it would have a 
been a general discharge.  Now, it seems times have advanced a little more and 
such soldiers get honorables.  Times are a changin'.

BTW, in some services, hetro soldiers can still be prosecuted for consential 
sodomy or oral copulation with a women while on base.  Should Clinton repeal 
this ban also, while he repeals it for homosexuals?

Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:12384 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:10798 alt.politics.clinton:19168 alt.politics.bush:14978 alt.politics.homosexuality:8485
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: 29 Dec 1992 17:20:07 GMT
Organization: Colorado Springs IT Center
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: fajita19.cs.itc.hp.com

fritzs@microsoft.com (Fritz Sands) writes:
> It is, IMO, imperative, however, that
> the second concept -- that gays, moral or not, live together, can be quite
> happy and "normal" and can be good parents raising "normal" children --
> be taught.  

1) At what age should this be taught? 
2) What makes it imperitive? 
3) Should it also be taught that bisexuals do those things?  How would 
   you do it? 

Walter
 
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: Sexuality
Organization: Anasazi Inc Phx Az USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 20:16:49 GMT

In article <1992Dec31.014201.16735@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> cfthb@ux1.cts.eiu.edu (Howard Black) writes:
>In article <1992Dec31.000514.21542@anasazi.com> briand@anasazi.com (Brian Douglass) writes:
>>
>>I don't know which is right, lifestyle or biological.  Maybe both, maybe
>>neither, the evidence is still just too evenly split.  So to argue one side
>>or the other is just an exercise in futility, as there is no right or wrong
>>answer.
>
>    Actually, I also feel the answer is irrelevant (that is, the nature vs.
>nurture question).  Neither is justification of legislated bigotry or
>judgement calls.

Fair enough.  And while biological vs lifestyle is very important to many,
a number of scientists seek to answer it, lets talk about your second
statement.

Please indicate items of legislated bigotry.  If you were to mean Prop 2 in
Colorado, my reading of the amendment is that it prohibits legislated
protection for gays as an expressed minority.  It does not attack, merely
prevents protection.  Sort of like forcing the settlers outside the fort.

Personally, I am as opposed to laws that single out groups to prevent
protection as I am to laws that single out groups for protection.  In
either case they have the same effect of labeling, stereotyping, and
seperating a group of people into a separate but supposedly equal class.
And any such seperation is the fertilizer of prejudice.

>
>-- 
>   ******************************************************************
>     Howard Black                             cfthb@ux1.cts.eiu.edu
>     Department of Chemistry                  Eastern Illinois Univ. 


Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexual
From: briand@anasazi.com (Brian Douglass)
Subject: Re: Showering in the Military (Re: Gays in the Military..what nobody
Organization: Anasazi Inc Phx Az USA
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 20:50:49 GMT

In article <LF2gwB2w165w@missing.kludge.com> pbowden@missing.kludge.com (Pete Bowden) writes:
>briand@anasazi.com (Brian Douglass) writes:
>
>> 
>> BTW, in some services, hetro soldiers can still be prosecuted for consential 
>> sodomy or oral copulation with a women while on base.  Should Clinton repeal 
>> this ban also, while he repeals it for homosexuals?
>> 
>
>Just as a point of clarification, Clinton can change or establish an
>executive order to allow homosexuals in the military, he cannot as
>easily change some of the laws which apply to the code of conduct of
>persons in the military.  Specifically it is unlawful for persons to
>engage in certain act--sodomy and perhaps oral copulation.  It is
>not a law which says that gays cannot enter the military, that is an
>executive order.  Thus, it is a bit off to say that Clinton can repeal
>the ban of sodomy or any action for homosexuals.  It will be unlawful
>for them if it is unlawful for heterosexuals and the law would need to
>be changed.

Thanks for the clarification.

So, to follow this, an executive order could allow homosexuals in to the
military, but homosexual behavior (sodomy, oral copulation) will still get
them brought up on charges.  

Question, where is the line draw on these charges betwen base activity and 
off-base activity?  That is if sodomy or oral copulation take place off-base, 
does the military have jurisdiction.

>
>Pete
>
>--
>pbowden@missing.kludge.com  (Pete Bowden)
>The Missing Link BBS, Santa Maria, CA  805-925-1129
From: dbernard@clesun.Central.Sun.COM (Dave Bernard)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: JESUS IS THE REASON FOR THE SEASON
Date: 31 Dec 1992 20:54:10 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems
Distribution: world
Reply-To: dbernard@clesun.Central.Sun.COM
NNTP-Posting-Host: clesun.central.sun.com

Bill Anderson writes:


>Yeah, I've heard that a lot- gimme a cite on it.  Not that I'm 
>disputing it; I'd like to see the decision.  

As I said, I believe it was 1964, a case of conscietious, religious-
based (ie, Secular Humanism) obection to the draft.  Forget the names
of the players.  SCOTUS ruled for the defense, recognized SH as a religion.

>Your argument above is circular: the court decisions which do
>not recognize the rule of the majority are based on the very
>constitutional provision which are intended to protect against
>a "tyranny of the majority," as one a those guys (Hamilton)
>said. 

	No, the government often acts against the majority, without
	caring anything about minorities, or of anything but itself,
	as is often the case with pork barrel topics, or tax increases.
	If anything, the Bill or Rights acts to protect the civil rights
	of all citizens, not of either the majority or minority.  Just read it!
                 
>And if you don't care if Satanists use public property, then we
>have no argument.  I don't have a problem with religious displays
>on public land, as long as (a) the government doesn't sponsor it,
>and (b) it's available to all religions.
>
	Agreed.
From: dbernard@clesun.Central.Sun.COM (Dave Bernard)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Columbus vs Indians (was Re: PC lives)
Date: 23 Dec 1992 17:07:53 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems
Distribution: world
Reply-To: dbernard@clesun.Central.Sun.COM
NNTP-Posting-Host: clesun.central.sun.com

Nathan Engle writes:

>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 
>p

>    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.

Er, what theory was that?  I never said anything about a dinner with 95,000,000
entrees... perhaps you're getting me confused with someone else?

Are you saying that 95% of the American population was wiped out by Smallpox?
That seems incredibly high!

Estimates of European deaths from the Plague during the Middle Ages range up
to 2/3 of the population.  Rumors were that the most virulent forms came from
the Central Asian steppes, spread by various waves of your basic Huns and Mongols.
Are Europeans then justified in despising Asiatics?  If Plague-suffering is so
conducive to conversion, why didn't Europeans convert en masse to whatever
animistic religions were practiced by the Central Asian nomads?

Dave

Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:12526 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:10948 alt.politics.clinton:19266 alt.politics.bush:15107 alt.politics.homosexuality:8597
From: dlhanson@nap.amoco.com (David L. Hanson)
Subject: Re: Education Regarding Alternative Family Units (Re: The Analogy Betwixt Gays & Blacks (Re: Children in Same-gender Families))
Organization: These are my opinions.
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 20:54:13 GMT

I saw this posted on USENET today.  Since my kids are homeschooled, they
are NOT subjected to sodomites, socialists, and other liberals but for those
who children are incarcerated in the public socialist system, this
information will help you to protect them.

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.


=========================================================================
David L. Hanson       Internet --> dlhanson@nap.amoco.com
Amoco Corporation     X.400    --> A=attmail,P=amoco,S=Hanson,G=David,I=L
Any opinions expressed are my own!
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: session@seq.uncwil.edu (Zack C. Sessions)
Subject: Re: Showering in the Military (Re: Gays in the Military..what nobody is talking about:)
Organization: Univ. of North Carolina @ Wilmington
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 01:30:15 GMT

krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:

>>>No need for flames.  You simply know very little about the military.
>>
>>Apparently, neither do you.
>
>Zack, Screw you!

[see response to your apology for this]

OK, so my response may have been a little out of line, as you obviously
missed my point.

I have read your comments that you are an Air Force veteran and the shower
facilities at Air Force Bases. However, inthe sentence above you used the
blanket term "military", which includes ALL branches of service.

I merely wanted to point out that all situations in all branches in the
military are not the same merely because they all take place in the
military.

>>I don't know what ship you served on, but most of the people on my ship,
>>married and single lived off-base (or "on the beach" as we called it).
>
>Again, let me repeat what I posted, IN THE AIR FORCE, NO ONE UNDER THE 
>RANK OF E-4, WHO WAS UNMARRIED, LIVED OUTSIDE THE DORM!  For a very simple 
>reason:  E-4's and above could get quarters allowance to help pay for their 
>quarters; married people likewise received quarters.  Lower ranking airmen 
>would have had to pay for their rent out of their own pocket, so they lived 
>in the dorm.  Jeez!  Do you get it now? 

It was the same in the Navy, except a lot of those lower ranked enlisted
men did things like share an apartement between two, three, or more so
as to be able to afford living off-base. I have seen some Air Force
facilities when I was in the Navy. I would strongly suspect that one reason
why those lower ranked enlisted seem to prefer to live on base is because
the on base facilities are usually nicer than what you could rent off-base!

>(By the way, Zack, sorry about the screw you.  I was frustrated when I read 
>the post and my editor doesn't allow for editing.  Not much of an editor, Huh?

Apology accepted. No, it isn't much of an editor it it doesn't allow editting.
Just what DOES it allow? ;-)

-- 
Zack Sessions
sessions@seq.uncwil.edu
University of North Carolina at Wilmington (Alumnus)
"Good health is merely the slowest form of dying."
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,a
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 00:38:51 GMT

rj24@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Robert  Johnston) writes:

>In article <C09Esx.9B7@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> graham@venus.iucf.indiana.edu writes:
>>In article <1993Jan2.230323.29355@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, 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:
>>>>
>>>>If a woman can decide
>>>>to have an abortion for purely personal economic reasons, then her decision
>>>>to have a child must also be based on purely personal economic reasons, and
>>>>there is no secularly logical way she can coerce an involuntary tax out 
>>>>of the man for a decision she makes unilaterally about her own economic 
>>>>future.
>>> 
>>>Strange I thought men chose to have sex?
>>
>>So do women who choose abortion, even if the father decides that he
>>_wants_ the child.
>>
>>And suppose the man is unwilling to be a father?  Why must he be legally
>>bound to provide for a child he doesn't want, when the mother is perfectly
>>free to decide to have a child that he doesn't want, when she can
>>decide to terminate the life of a child he may decide that he wants?
>>
>>Understand his point now?
>>

>Either the father, or tax dollars, will provide for the child.
>Though it may not be fair to always force the fater to pay support,
>where possible, this is certainly better than forcing you and me to pay 
>child support.

Really?  Then you must be opposed to state funding of abortions, since
it is certainly better not to force "you and me to pay" for it.

>>> 
>>>>Especially now that the AZT-resistant strains are obviously being spread
>>>>by precisely these people?  According to secular reasoning, a drunk driver
>>>>and a sexually active AIDS carrier are no different.  
>>> 
>>>No according to religious reasoning they are no different.
>>>In secular reasoning the idea of consent plays a role. An HIV+ rapist is a
>>>murderer if someone dies as a result. A person who chooses to have sex with
>>>someone who is HIV+ and dies as a result was not murdered.
>>
>>But, if an HIV+ partner deliberately lies or fails to inform even a willing
>>sex partner that he or she is infected, and the uninformed, albeit willing
>>partner contracts aids and dies, then yes, it most certainly should be
>>at least "manslaughter".
>>
>				   
>So, you are saying that if you have sex with someone, you are
>resposible for conditions that might result from this act. I guess
>you DO believe in child support after all.

>You wouldn't ever be inconsistent in your beliefs, after all.

Just between you and me, I haven't found many people who are consistent
in their beliefs.

Steve Kellmeyer
-- 

Steve Kellmeyer 
kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh