HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: owen@autodesk.com (D. Owen Rowley)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: The Analogy Betwixt Gays & Blacks (Re: Children in Same-gender Families)
Date: 17 Dec 92 21:35:44 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.homosexuality
Distribution: usa

In article <14DEC199213373618@zeus.tamu.edu>, rlc1028@zeus.tamu.edu writes:
> 	There is a distinction between Gay identity and Gay behaviour.
> 	Gays are like Blacks in that there is something about them,
> irrespective of thier behaviour, which they cannot seem to change.  In 
> particular, Gays are sexually responsive to members of their own gender.
> They cannot love members of the opposite gender in the same capacity.
> This is a trait which they are either born with or acquire sometime before
> they have an awareness of it.  

This is really tedious and sterotypical.
Not to mention just plain incorrect.

Queers are a diverse lot.

All this stuff about Queers in the military is a dodge.

There always have been queers in the military, there always will be.
All that is being proposed is that we don't throw out people.
The Military will not see a flood of queers showing up to be signed
up, all that will happen is that the government will be recognising a
reality.

LUX ./. owen

--
D. Owen Rowley {uunet,fernwood,sun}!autodesk!owen

  " It will be a cold March 17th that I celebrate the imposition of
	Romes rule, on Pagan Ireland. Erin go ppphhhhhttttttt! "
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:12015 alt.politics.clinton:18961 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:10518 alt.politics.bush:14803
From: eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler)
Subject: Re: Guilty, Guilty, Guilty [Was:  Garry Trudeau, etc., etc....]
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 04:08:57 GMT
Organization: Superseding Information, Inc.

In <BzGp38.M85@sunfish.usd.edu>, choover@charlie.usd.edu sez:
>Reality check here, kids.

Since clinical tests show that alt.rush-limbaugh is polluted by less
than 3 femtoreality p.p.m., this is *hardly* in the spirit of things,
now is it?

FYI, the GGG strip is about John Mitchell.  I have it rat cheer in
front of me.

-- 
			Sold by weight, not by volume.
  Some settling of contents may have occurred during shipment and handling.

	   Mark Eckenwiler    eck@panix.com     ...!cmcl2!panix!eck
From: jaitken@csugrad.cs.vt.edu (Jeff Aitken)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Pampering criminals
Date: 12 Dec 92 16:53:25 GMT
Organization: Virginia Tech Computer Science Dept, Blacksburg, VA
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4


     Someone mentioned earlier that the criminals had phones and the
time to use them to commit a phone scam.  What I want to know is, why
the hell weren't they out doing something useful?  Why the hell do the
need this kind of access to phones anyway?  Convicted felons Do not
have the same rights as everyone else (e.g., voting)  Our criminal
justice system has gone to hell in the proverbial handbasket.  Too
many people still believe that our jails are there for
"rehabilitation" and not punishment.  When will we wake up and realize
that these people are there because they violated someone's rights?
They need to be taught a lesson, be given a swift kick in the ass.  It
has been the case many times that those who are (i.e, kicked in the
ass)  usually get their life back in order.  The rest, well, you make
the call.  The rate of repeat offenders in federal penitentiaries
(sp?) is well over 80% I believe.  These folks have obviously "seen
the error of their ways", eh?

Jeff


-- 
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. |     
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:11745 alt.politics.bush:14614
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 10:44:14 EST
From: Kurt Ludwick <KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Christianity causes the fall of civilizations - NOT!
 <1992Dec15.215103.17692@netcom.com>

In article <1992Dec15.215103.17692@netcom.com>, mvp@netcom.com (Mike Van Pelt)
says:

>>Franklin was a notarious womanizer (a right-wing republican/fundamentalist
>>trait), but he also advocated many liberal causes of the time.
>**SNORF** This is the most hilarious thing I've seen all week, right
>next to the "Funniest Cooking Disasters" thread on rec.cooking.
>Right-wing Republican fundamentalists like Teddy Kennedy?  Bob
>Packwood?  (Well, he's Republican, but a very *liberal* Republican.)
>Daniel Inoye?  Wilbur Mills?

Nah, he must've meant Clarence Thomas.  We all know what a womanizer he is;
the volume of evidence is undeniable.  Right?
(I mean, there WAS some, wasn't there?  Hm?)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Kurt  E.  Ludwick     | If PRO is the opposite of CON, then
 -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -|
 kel111@psuvm.psu.edu  |             what's the opposite of Progress...?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:12032 talk.politics.space:1564 sci.space:17939
From: young@ssdd475a.erim.org (Peter Young)
Subject: Re: Homophobes in the Military..what nobody is talking about: (Re: Gays in the Military..what nobody is talking about:)
In-reply-to: k206027@smog.DKRZ-Hamburg.DE's message of Fri, 11 Dec 92 08:05:37 GMT
Organization: Environmental Research Institute of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
	<1992Dec7.182441.9492@galileo.physics.arizona.edu>
	<1992Dec09.210734.43257@ux1.cts.eiu.edu>
	<1992Dec11.080537.1288@news.DKRZ-Hamburg.DE>
Distribution: usa
Date: 11 Dec 92 12:42:53

In article <1992Dec11.080537.1288@news.DKRZ-Hamburg.DE> k206027@smog.DKRZ-Hamburg.DE (Bakayaroo Banzai) writes:

>   not typical of a lot of Christians). Why then, is this program
>   in NY which offends many people,somehow more defensible?
>   At the very least parents should be able to withdraw their
>   children from these indoctrination sessions if they wish to.

But they can.  Children need to have signed permission from their
parents before they are permitted to be in these classes.  You can
argue that the 'informed consent' is at best poorly informed, as it
seems that the school board did not volunteer all the facts, but you
can't argue about being able to withdraw.

Peter
--
Peter Young
young@erim.org
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: mvp@netcom.com (Mike Van Pelt)
Subject: Re: Morton Downey
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 22:42:34 GMT

In article <1992Dec8.233405.24739@galileo.physics.arizona.edu>
krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) has the .signature file:

>So the Maples formed a union, and demanded equal rights, "The Oaks are just 
>too greedy.  We will make them give us light!"  Now there's no more Oak 
>oppression, for they passed a noble law.  And the trees are all kept equal, 
>by hatchet, axe and saw.     -  Rush, The Trees

Neat quote.  Perfect example of the Procrustean Liberal definition
of "equal rights".

-- 
Mike Van Pelt          | What happens if a big asteroid hits Earth?
mvp@netcom.com         | Judging from realistic simulations involving a
                       | sledge hammer and a common laboratory frog, we
                       | can assume it will be pretty bad. -- Dave Barry
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: rlc1028@zeus.tamu.edu  
Subject: Education Regarding Alternative Family Units (Re: The Analogy Betwixt Gays & Blacks (Re: Children in Same-gender Families))
Organization: EUnet EDV-Dienstleistungsgesellschaft m.b.H
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 05:25:00 GMT

In article <1gnoriINN4bl@hp-col.col.hp.com>, smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes...

|So should families where one parent is a crossdresser be shown? 
|Or both are?  Does a distinction need to be made between 2-male families 
|and households where there is a father and a male (non-gay relation) 
|sharing the house (to share expenses) where they sleep in *different* 
|rooms?  Do we need to show families where daddy and the family dog are 
|very close?  Do we need to show families where mommy and daddy are 
|swingers, and occasionally have someone else's mommy/daddy sleep over 
|instead of the usual mommy/daddy?  How about when daddy and daddy are 
|swingers, and swap daddies now and then?  I realize I'm going to an 
|absurd length here, but do you see the point?  

	Why do you feel it necessary to portray families as based on
the specific sexual practises?  Isn't it sufficient simply to show families
as based on gender differences (or similarities) alone?  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.

Gadson
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:11891 alt.politics.clinton:18851 alt.politics.bush:14727 alt.politics.homosexuality:8162 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:10434
From: krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger)
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: 17 Dec 92 01:36:30 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson AZ

In article <BzDowr.Gvv@acsu.buffalo.edu> v108jqur@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (ANTHONY PAUL AVERY) writes:
>In article <1992Dec14.184223.25697@galileo.physics.arizona.edu>, krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes...
>>In article <00964F02.484AF800@vms.csd.mu.edu> 9073hammesm@vms.csd.mu.edu writes:
>>>
>>>Is it written in stone somewhere that recruits HAVE to shower together?
>>>Showering seems to be the big problem with having gays in the military.
>>>Hasn't anyone thought of putting up curtains?  Most women's locker rooms
>>>have them.  This fear of the shower is IMHO given too much emphasis since
>>>many persons in the military live off base anyway.  I agree privacy is
>>>important and the issue should be dealt, but accommodating privacy can
>>>be done without banning gays.
>>>
>>>Flame away!
>> 
>>No need for flames.  You simply know very little about the military.  When 
>>women were allowed into the military, millions of dollars were spent in 
>>order to provide separate facilities for them.  Likewise, dollars will have 
>>to be spent to provide separate facilities for gays.  Before you answer, 
>>"They can use the same facilities as heteros." let me ask you:  Who will 
>>decide that?  So far, gays (and a few simpathizers) want to shower with 
>>heteros, and don't think it will be a big deal.  Most heteros (esp. in the 
>>active duty now), will think it is a very big deal.  This leads us right 
>>back to a point I made about a week ago.  Nobody cares a lick about how 
>>the heteros will feel about this.  We are not PC.  We do not matter.
>> 
>>In addition, you imply that a large percentage of military live off base.  
>>You might be surprised to learn that the overwhelming, vast majority of 
>>single people in the military live in barracks (or in dorm situations on 
>>ships, etc.)
>> 
>>Ted
>> 
>>-- 
>	I Would like to respond and just say that ted, you have to 
>remember that unlike blacks, gays DO NOT usually stand out unless
>heterosexuals (and closeted gays) plan on giving us pink triangles to wear in 
>the military - sound familar?

OH BOY!  The obligitory Nazi accusation!  This is how you can really tell 
that lefties (or at least the lefty in question) have run out of arguments!  

Now why it took us about 1 month to get to nazis is beyond me, but we can 
consider this thread completely dead now.  It's purpose has been served.

Ted
ZZ

-- 
So the Maples formed a union, and demanded equal rights, "The Oaks are just 
too greedy.  We will make them give us light!"  Now there's no more Oak 
oppression, for they passed a noble law.  And the trees are all kept equal, 
by hatchet, axe and saw.     -  Rush, The Trees
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:11755 alt.politics.clinton:18753
From: borden@head-cfa.harvard.edu (Dave Borden)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Gays in the Military..what nobody is talking about:
Date: 16 Dec 92 17:32:13 GMT
Reply-To: borden@m5.harvard.edu
Distribution: usa
Organization: Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, Cambridge, MA,  USA

In article <1992Dec16.042850.6565@anasazi.com> john@anasazi.com writes:

>Dave, surely you jest. Do you mean that the government can never
>discriminate except when it is "fair"? What does "fair" mean? Can
>it hire unqualified people by jury rigging test results based on
>race (race norming) and be fair? Can it hire people to meet a sexual
>quota and be fair?

Affirmative action is another issue, albeit a related one. It's not one
which I care to debate in this thread.

>                   Can it refuse to hire a handicapped person because
>that person might not be qualified? How about someone with a personality
>disorder?

A physical handicap or a personality disorder is a serious impairment to
one's ability to carry out one's duties as a member of the military.
Therefore the military is justified in not hiring them.  This criterion
does not apply to homosexuality.

>What do YOU mean by "unfair discrimination"? What is it about sexual
>orientation that makes it a special case? How about people who don't
>bathe but are otherwise qualified? Should the military be forced
>to hire them?

Those who don't bathe have the ability to begin bathing; it's their choice.
Homosexuals don't have the ability to become heterosexuals.  Your analogy is
not valid for that reason.  Your previous analogy between homosexuals and
the handicapped is not valid because it ignores the fact that the handicapped
are laregly incapable of military service, while homosexuals are as capable of
military service as heterosexuals.

  - Dave Borden
    borden@m5.harvard.edu
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:11707 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:10195
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 14:45:49 EST
From: Kurt Ludwick <KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: "Dittos" for John Switzer (was Re: Summary Fri 12/4/92)
 <1992Dec15.001727.23303@ils.nwu.edu> <92350.070411KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu>
 <1992Dec15.125217.17957@news2.cis.umn.edu>

In article <1992Dec15.125217.17957@news2.cis.umn.edu>, prabhak@giga.cs.umn.edu
(Satya Prabhakar) says:

>>Helping to spread the Word of Rush will likely do more to increase the number
>>of conservatives in the world than mere procreation anyway.
>Those who confuse Mr. Limbaugh with the Second Coming should realize
>that he is first a businessman and then a conservative.

Those who confuse fandom for fanaticism should lighten up.
(I -knew- this would annoy somebody... :-)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Kurt  E.  Ludwick     | If PRO is the opposite of CON, then
 -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -|
 kel111@psuvm.psu.edu  |             what's the opposite of Progress...?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton
From: rlc1028@zeus.tamu.edu
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: 17 Dec 1992 12:17 CST
Organization: Texas A&M University, College Station, TX
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: zeus.tamu.edu

In article <1gqcq1INNiho@hp-col.col.hp.com>, smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes...
|rlc1028@zeus.tamu.edu writes:
|> 	Well now, since I have not read the book, you'll have to tell me 
|> what the "last part" shows.
| 
|Oh, I was under the impression from your response that you had been 
|following the discussion about the book.  I have not read it, either; 
|as it was described to me, the last part is (picture of one man under
|the covers and the other turning off the light) "daddy and his roommate
|go to sleep together".  

	I see.  I think that the purpose of the book could be served just 
as well of that part were left out.  I mean, I don't see much value in 
showing any parent getting into bed with the other.  However, does this
necessarily depict anything other than them sleeping together?

	On the other hand, how many children are cognitively aware that
their parents sleep together?  I mean, I knew, but it was so taken for
granted that I never /thought/ about it... much less ever had any idea
as to what they did in bed other than sleep.

Gadson
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: lazarus@wixer.cactus.org (Michael Lax)
Subject: Re: The Analogy Betwixt Gays & Blacks
Organization: Real/Time Communications
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 92 20:18:19 GMT

In article <0gV2VB1w165w@cybernet.cse.fau.edu> frederic@cybernet.cse.fau.edu (Frederic Woodbridge) writes:
>
>> > >In article <645@blue.cis.pitt.edu>, psg+@pitt.edu (Paul S Galvanek) writes
>> > >	Blacks cannot, without much effort, change their skin colour,
>> > >and Gays cannot change their gender attraction.
>> 
>That is the most ridiculous thing I have EVER read! What you're trying to
>do, Paul, is to pass off abnormal behaviour as commonplace. Whatsmore,
>please DO NOT insult Black people all over the world by comparing them with
>Homosexuals!!
>I note that I expect flames from all our sexually deviant brethren (I use
>that word VERY loosely).
>Frederic Woodbridge, III.
>Florida Atlantic University.

Why is this so ridiculous?  You have obviously confused "normal" with "norm"
In which case I suppose you find all left-handed people "sinister".  And
Jews child killers.  And Hinduism and Buddhism cults.  Also, I fail to see
how Paul insulted anyone; if you take this comparison as an insult, that
sounds like _your_ problem.  

======================================================================
"For I can see that in the midst of death, Life persists; in the
midst of untruth, Truth persists; in the midst of darkness, Light
persists."

"An eye for an eye will blind the world."
                                      Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi

"I'm here, I'm queer, get used to it."
                                                             ME!

lazarus@wixer.cactus.org
Michael Lax, 12514 Esplanade St., #B, Austin, TX  78727-4409
512.837.1596 (h), 512.836.9715 (fax)


Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: ecl@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (Evelyn C. Leeper)
Subject: Re: The Analogy Betwixt Gays & Blacks (Re: Children in Same-gender Families)
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 16:08:40 GMT

There seem to be two sets of people here--those who believe gayness
cannot be changed and those who believe it can.

For the former, I will say that just as blacks (or Asians, or various
other races) should not be discriminated against, neither should gays.

For the latter, I will say that just as Jews (or Christians, or various
other religions) should not be discriminated against, neither should
gays.

Frankly, I have no idea what makes someone gay, straight, or bisexual.
I *suspect* it's not volitional, but that's just my opinion.  I don't
particularly care why some people prefer strawberry ice cream to
chocolate either, but in any case, it would be a singularly stupid
issue to base hiring, promotion, housing, or public accomodations on,
and it would be considered ludicrous to say school textbooks should
show only chocolate ice cream cones.  Even George Bush said merely
that *he* didn't like broccoli; he didn't insist that it be banned.

Evelyn C. Leeper  |  +1 908 957 2070  |  att!mtgzy!ecl or  ecl@mtgzy.att.com
--
"God does not play dice with the universe."  --Albert Einstein
"Albert, stop telling God what to do."  --Niels Bohr
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: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 16:21:02 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.

>In addition, you imply that a large percentage of military live off base.  
>You might be surprised to learn that the overwhelming, vast majority of 
>single people in the military live in barracks (or in dorm situations on 
>ships, etc.)

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).

And even for those of us (including me) who had to live on board, the
enlisted men's head (aka the bathroom) had individual shower stalls.
Every ship I ever went on (a bunch) had individual shower stalls.

Yes, the showers at bootcamp were "open" like in a gym's shower, but
you are only in boot camp for a short period of time compared to your
entire enlistment, and like some other poster said, homosexuals don't walk
around with some kind of sign on.

-- 
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.politics.clinton,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush
From: cfthb@ux1.cts.eiu.edu (Howard Black)
Subject: Re: End the Ban on Gays in the Military
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 16:00:57 GMT
Distribution: world, na, usa
Organization: Eastern Illinois University

In article <1992Dec10.205504.18894@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
>
>Hate-based humor! Perhaps you should enroll in classes, full-time, so 
>you can get a Pell Grant to buy a clue!  Have you never read posts on 

    I assume you'll be teaching it?

>a subject which continue to keep you frustrated at the lack of 
>understanding of the posters?  I have, and I bet Jim had too, just 

    "Understanding" means "agreement with my view", I suppose?

>before he made this post.  I wonder if you realize how you water-down 
>the seriousness of anything hate-based when you post that tag on Jim's 
>joke.  But perhaps you believe that anything that disagrees or pokes 
>fun at you is hate-based.  Oh God!  That means that this post is 
>hate-based!  Whatever shall I do?

    How about hit "u" next time you are in this newsgroup?
-- 
   ******************************************************************
     Howard Black                             cfthb@ux1.cts.eiu.edu
     Department of Chemistry                  Eastern Illinois Univ. 
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:11649 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:10123
From: young@ssdd475a.erim.org (Peter Young)
Subject: Re: End the Ban on Gays in the Military
In-reply-to: cfthb@ux1.cts.eiu.edu's message of Mon, 14 Dec 1992 15:58:34 GMT
Organization: Environmental Research Institute of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
	<1992Dec11.144011.27309@uswmrg.mrg.uswest.com.mrg.uswest.com>
	<1992Dec12.171625.13528@aio.jsc.nasa.gov>
	<1992Dec14.155834.7165@ux1.cts.eiu.edu>
Date: 14 Dec 92 12:56:16

In article <1992Dec14.155834.7165@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> cfthb@ux1.cts.eiu.edu (Howard Black) writes:

>       *This* is an attempt to enlighten?  Are you as stupid as this post
>   makes you appear, or do you just like being flamebait?

C'mon, Howard.  Grownups don't pick on idiost or children.
--
Peter Young
young@erim.org
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh