HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: GayBashing question
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 03:08:37 GMT

jaker@csugrad.cs.vt.edu (Jake Rose) writes:
] 
] This is entirely correct.  However, people do discriminate against
] people solely for their sexual behavior - witness the upsurge of
] "Gay-Bashing" as a national pastime in recent years.  Protection from
] this kind of discrimination is prohibited by Amendment 2.

two minor points:

1. The Navy is now releasing the fact that it is
investigating the MURDER of a sailor who came out
as being 'gay' by one of his 'shipmates.'

This is NOT what i would call 'gay bashing' - its
a clear Case of Gay Killing.

2. What a Lot of folks seem to foget about the 
'preference defense' issue, is that it is very
important for 'straight males' who do not live
up to some PsychoFanatics Macho Images.

I will re_iterate again. I was amused to no end
when the 'angst' about my possibly being Gay was
displaced by the fact that in the Breach I feel
very much at home with small arms and small unit tactics.

Suddenly what I may or may not do on 'liberty'
was not as pressing an Issue as what I could
do in a Fucking Fire Fight.

The Real Fun is Coming home to the world and having
to deal with JoeBobDickHeadBarStoolHero
who has some Macho Attitude, and I don't match his
DickHeaded Profile of what Macho Means....

ciao
drieux

ps: Real Fun is teaching JoeBobDickHeads in
the service why they need to be aware of 
"Your Friend the Bobby Trapped escape route...."

after a while, any stirng became suspect....






-- 
MajorModernDayProblems: "Olivia Newton-John is the grand-daughter 
of Nobel Prize-winning physicist Sir Edmund Newton-John." --Frank

Clear Proof Of Genetic Superiority, eh No????
From: Treble@asc.slb.com (John Treble)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Does Rush ever post here?
Followup-To: alt.rush-limbaugh
Date: 8 Jan 1993 18:35:25 GMT
Organization: ASC-Austin
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: asc438.asc.slb.com

In article <1993Jan7.171958.452@hsh.com>, paul@hsh.com wrote:
> 
> In article <1ihpgoINNs3n@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, jps8@po.CWRU.Edu (James P. Schwonek) writes:
> > 
> > Just wondering...
> > 
> 
> Because he doesn't have Internet access.  That's why.
> 
> ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ 
> 
> Paul Havemann   (paul@hsh.com)

Does anyone know Rush's CompuServe account number?  Or is that not public
information?

A Fan,
treble@asc.slb.com "My humble, but accurate, opinion does not necessarily
reflect that of my employer. I get full credit for my insightful and witty
comments!"
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:13139 alt.sex:41097 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:11706 alt.politics.correct:6089 alt.politics.equality:14
From: teddybur@netcom.com (John Sanger)
Subject: Re: Lifestyle Choices and Secular Reasoning
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 06:10:55 GMT

In article <C0DxvI.2xw@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (kellmeyer steven l) writes:
>
>I wasn't aware that truth was subject to majority rule.
>
>-- 
>
>Steve Kellmeyer 
>kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu

I and others in this group are not aware that you have been made the bearer
of truth.  I do not think that you can prove that you have been endowed by
your godperson to be the truth giver.  I certainly do not find very much
truth in what you are posting.  I find the counter posts to yours to be
extremely accurate and based upon the reality of our existance and not the
myth of our existance as you would try to make us believe.


Ciao!
	John S. :^)
	teddybur@netcom.com
__
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 18:37:01 GMT

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.

This is idiotic.  The argument in scientific circles is not between
biology and "lifestyle choice", it is between biology and
early childhood experience.  The study you quoted suggested
that early childhood experience is not very important, and other
studies have suggested that biology probably plays some sort of
role.  If you have a study claiming that "lifestyle choice" is the
reason some people are exclusively attracted to the same sex whereas
others are exclusively attracted to the opposite one, please cite it.
Otherwise, I shall have to conclude you are talking nonsense.

>So to argue one side or the other is just an exercise in futility, as
>there is no right or wrong answer.

The whole point of arguing something scientific is to evaluate the
evidence on both sides and eventually come to a conclusion.  Of
course, the opinions of outsiders to a particular field is likely to
have little effect on this process, so you might want to call it
"irrelevant".  But I don't see why you would want to deride two
non-astronomers arguing in the 17th century over Galileo's "Two
Systems", and certainly don't see why you would insist that there is
no right or wrong answer about heliocentrism, so people should just
shut up.


-- 
     Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/IWR/Ruprecht-Karls University 
               gsmith@kalliope.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.sex,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.correct,alt.politics.equality,alt.society.civil-liberty
From: mrl28033@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Michael R Linksvayer)
Subject: Re: Protection for homosexuals *is* valid (Was "Colorado Amendment2 Query")
Followup-To: alt.politics.correct,alt.politics.equality,alt.society.civil-liberty,talk.politics.misc
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 19:26:15 GMT

Note followup-to: This thread doesn't have much to do with sex
or limbaugh anymore (did it ever?). talk.politics.misc and
alt.society.civil-liberty added...

In article <C0FsE6.1Bz@csugrad.cs.vt.edu> jaker@csugrad.cs.vt.edu (Jake Rose) writes:
>mrl28033@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Michael R Linksvayer) writes:
>>If one is really interested in applying the 14th amendment then
>>all anti-discrimination laws should be eliminated. However, this
>
>All *anti*discrimination laws?  I don't think so - all laws which
>require discrimination should be eliminated (eg Affirmitive Action),
>but not those which help protect against it.

Yes, all *anti*discrimination laws. Some people here seem to think
that being discriminated against is like being raped or murdered.
It is not. If you are raped or murdered, an act of violence has
been committed against you. If you are discriminated against, you have
been ignored. Why should ignoring someone be a crime?
 
I agree with anyone who says that lots of people discriminate for
stupid and bigoted reasons. However, I will argue that the law is
not an appropriate remedy.

>>is a major task, and the Colorado amendment is a step in the
>>right direction. It seems that the amendment may have been
>>written to appeal to bigotry (mentioning only same-sex
>>orientations, rather than simply any sexual orientation) but its
>>effect is to increase freedom and equality under the law. Life
>>is ironic sometimes, isn't it?
>
>How does it increase freedom?  By denying one particular group its
>right to claim discrimination on one particular basis?  Your argument
>is illogical - nay, nonexistant!

Eliminating all antidiscrimination laws increases freedom by
making the employee/employer voluntary _on both sides_. Nobody
argues that employees should not be able to reject an employer's
offer of employment for arbitrary reasons. I think that employers
should have the same legal rights as employees, including the
ability to discriminate arbitrarily.

>>My proposed super equality before the law amendment:
>>NO PROTECTION BASED ON ANY CATEGORIZATION ... [Your State] Shall
>>not adopt any law ... whereby any categorization ... shall
>>entitle any person ... to claim of discrimination.
>
>No, but any person should be free to make claim of discrimination on
>any basis, since any person is likely to discriminate against any other
>for the most idiotic reasons - hot topic in racial discrimination today:
>blacks discriminating against blacks because of skin *darkness*!  Where
>does it end?  Nowhere.  We need the ability to make discrimination claims
>no matter what the basis.

It ends only when we eliminate antidiscrimination laws. 

-- 
Mike Linksvayer   m-linksvayer@uiuc.edu   +1 217 344 1326
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: bob@hobbes.dtcc.edu (Bob Rahe)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Chelsea's school ...
Date: 11 Jan 1993 18:53:56 GMT
Organization: Delaware Technical & Community College
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: hobbes.dtcc.edu

In article <1993Jan8.185341.14427@b30.ingr.com> dash@skyy.b30.ingr.com writes:

>Look.  If you get taxpayer money in the form of vouchers accepted by
>private (religious) schools, then they should also abide by government 
>(and supreme court decisions) regarding school prayer. Don't like them
>apples, then don't accept vouchers.....

  Well, how about giving the vouchers to the PARENTS?  They then use it to
buy an education for their kids.

   Or are you saying that a welfare recipient should not spend their food
stamps in, say, a kosher food store?  Or may not spend any of their money
on anything even partially church related?  (They would have used the money
for food without the foodstamps being available, and besides, the feds
already consider a school tax supported if a student has a gummit student
loan so....  Why not expand it to include drug stores, etc. etc.??? )  Those
student loans might include things like 'incidentals' etc.

  I don't see the logic....
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Bob Rahe, Delaware Tech&Comm College | AIDS, Drugs, Abortion: -        |
|Internet: bob@hobbes.dtcc.edu        |  - Don't liberals just kill you?|
|CI$: 72406,525 Genie:BOB.RAHE        |Save whales; and kill babies?    |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:13008 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:11519 alt.politics.clinton:19602 alt.politics.bush:15526 alt.politics.homosexuality:8955
From: rlc1028@zeus.tamu.edu (Gadson Sandor)
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: 4 Jan 1993 22:17 CST
Organization: Texas A&M University, College Station, TX
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: zeus.tamu.edu

In article <1993Jan4.211232.15876@wam.umd.edu>, aap@wam.umd.edu (Alberto Adolfo Pinkas) writes...
| 
|It would be interesting to point out that we can find incest in *every*
|mammalian species other than human biengs.
|And, also, that there is no age of consent among all
|other mammalian species.

	Which would only serve to prove the point that there is no
correlation between what is natural (unnatural) and what is morally
right (wrong).

	Thanks Al.

     ____                _
    /    )               /          
   /    /               /       
  (____/   ___     ___ /   ___,    ___   ,___ 
__    /   ____)   /   /   (__     /   )  /   )
 /   /   /   /   /   /       )   /   /  /   /     
(___/   (___(_  (___(_  (___/   (___/  /   (__    
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:13453 alt.sex:41453 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:12049 alt.politics.correct:6124 alt.politics.equality:49
From: mrbulli@btoy1.rochester.NY.US (Mr. Bulli (private account))
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.sex,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.correct,alt.politics.equality
Subject: Re: Colorado Amendment2 Query
Date: 9 Jan 93 11:55:12 GMT
Reply-To: mrbulli@btoy1.rochester.NY.US
Followup-To: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.sex,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.correct,alt.politics.equality
Organization: Private UUCP site
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]

On 7 Jan 93 18:00:31 GMT Martin Fox (mfox@fanfare.mv.us.adobe.com) wrote:

: ...
: (Most straight people do not appear to be aware that there are sodomy laws
: in place in about 50% of states in the U.S. Straight people in these
: states have the legal advantage of being able to kiss their SO's without
: committing a felony.)

Could some kind soul either post or e-mail me a list of those laws?

: ...
--
  ______                             __        _  _
    /   /                           /  )      // //                        
   /   /_  __________  __.  _      /--<  . . // // o ____  _,  _  __
(_/   / /_(_) / / / <_(_/|_/_)    /___/_(_/_</_</_<_/ / <_(_)_</_/ (_
       UUCP:     ..rutgers!ur-valhalla!btoy1!mrbulli      /|  Compu$erve:
       Internet:       mrbulli@btoy1.rochester.NY.US     |/    76535,2221
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: briand@anasazi.com (Brian Douglass)
Subject: Re: Lifestyle Choices and Secular Reasoning
Organization: Anasazi Inc Phx Az USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 21:36:40 GMT

In article <markm.726301423@salem> markm@salem.intel.com (Mark Morrissey) writes:
>Sorry all, just kind of catching up.
>
>In <C07oBz.F74@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (kellmeyer steven l) writes:
>
>> [lots of tripe]
>
>Well, Steven, child.  Religious reasoning brought us crusades, jihads,
>racial cleansing, and the like.  It brought us religion-based incest
>and all sorts of other nifty-neato ideals.  It brought us the sanctimonious
>diatribes of the morally bankrupt heterosexual purists.  Frankly, it brought
>us all a bunch of shit (not to mention a world war or two).

As so you stand in judgement today of your forebarers and vilify them, so
shall your posterity tomorrow stand in judgement of your actions today.

(For those who might misinterpret, by the same presumption that we today
can stand in judgement of our human past and label it abhorrent, so too
should we expect those of the future to look back at our days and past similar
judgement.  And as those of the past thought what they did was right and
best, as we do today, what cause is there to expect that the "more
enlightened" society of tomorrow will not be just as contemptous of us, as
we are of our past.)

To be judgemental of the past, just as with a contemporary, is to place
judgement on yourself.

[deleted stuff]

>--mark
>-----
>Mark Morrissey               markm@ashland.intel.com
>#include <disclaimer.h>      PC does NOT mean "Probably Can't"


-- 
"The best government of all is that government which governs the least."
	Jefferson
Brian Douglass		briand@anasazi.com 	602-870-3330 X657
From: laurel.schippers@hal9k.ann-arbor.mi.us (Laurel Schippers) 
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Bob Hooker's possibly
Date: 9 Jan 93 05:43:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: HAL 9000 BBS, W-NET HQ, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
Reply-To: laurel.schippers@hal9k.ann-arbor.mi.us (Laurel Schippers) 

MMS>|The most extrememe militant feminists do share a lot with nazi-ism.
MMS>|Promoting abortion for abortion's sake is very common with Genocide.
MMS>|And there's clear and frequently quoted feminist writings that indicate
MMS>|these feminists believe in a superior race - women.

Really? Can you name them? I'm curious as to how these psycho-women
who love the idea of having their uterii vacuumed have managed to
delude millions of women.

MMS>|You wanna share the sources/writings directly from Buchannan that indicate
MMS>|he is an anti=semite.  I've seen you and I've seen plenty of TV journalist
MMS>|make this kind of claim.  Yet the people that deal with him day in and
MMS>|day out and know him a lot better than you do say otherwise...

MMS>|: --
MMS>|: These opinions are usually my own, sometimes my dog's,
MMS>|: occasionaly my (grown) children's, never my employer's.


MMS>|mykes
MMS>|semite

Interesting. You offer vague statements about unnamed feminist "Nazis"
who supposedly love gratuitous abortion, but you demand written proof
that Buchanan is anti-Semitic.

Abortion is a surgical procedure. Why any ultra-feminist would recommend
a very uncomfortable surgery to women is beyond me.
---
 . SLMR 2.0 . "God created Michigan to train the faithful."
 * KMail 2.94e W-NET HQ, hal9k.ann-arbor.mi.us, 313-663-4173 or 3959
                                                                    
----
+------------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| HAL 9000 BBS +1 313 663 4173 or 663 3959 | Four 14.4k v.32bis dial-ins |
| Public Access QWK-to-Usenet gateway      | With PCBoard 14.5aM & uuPCB |
+------------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: casivils@lescsse.jsc.nasa.gov (craig sivils)
Subject: Re: Your own words, of course != bigot
Organization: Lockheed Engineering and Sciences
Distribution: usa, world
Date: 10 Jan 93 21:53:08 GMT

In <1993Jan06.025517.6434@jcnpc.cmhnet.org> mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org (Mike A. McAngus) writes:

>craig sivils (casivils@lescsse.jsc.nasa.gov) wrote:
>:
>: Sorry, it doesn't fly, you can only label a person a bigot if they allow
>: their actions toward a person to be affected by their belief that homosexuali
>ty
>: is wrong.
>:
>: Using the same logic, everyone on the planet would be a bigot on some area
>: (they disagree with someone on the morality of something).
>:
>:                   Craig

>bigot, n. 1. a person who holds blindly and intolerantly to a particular creed,
>opinion, etc.  2. a narrow-minded, intolerant person.

>Note the requirement of intolerance.  Disagreement is not bigotry, but 
>intolerant disagreement is.

I say again,

you can only label a person a bigot if they allow
                                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
their actions toward a person to be affected by their belief that homosexuality
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
is Wrong
^^^^^^^^

1.  tolerate != accept.

2.  If a person is intolerant then I would say that they allowed their belief
    to affect their actions toward the person.

Also note, the same definition could be used to call anyone who firmly believes
anything a bigot.

				Craig
From: laurel.schippers@hal9k.ann-arbor.mi.us (Laurel Schippers) 
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Lifestyle Choices (wa
Date: 7 Jan 93 09:24:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: HAL 9000 BBS, W-NET HQ, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
Reply-To: laurel.schippers@hal9k.ann-arbor.mi.us (Laurel Schippers) 

GS>From: glen@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Glen Sonnenberg)
GS>Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt
GS>itics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
GS>Subject: Re: Lifestyle Choices (was  Re: Sexuality)
GS>Message-ID: <1993Jan4.192724.25322@galileo.physics.arizona.edu>
GS>Date: 4 Jan 93 19:27:24 GMT
GS>References: <C03vn5.77K@NeoSoft.com> <1992Dec31.204741.11263@anasazi.com> <1
GS>an1.065155.5726@netcom.com>
GS>Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson AZ

GS>I saw a show on PBS that showed an example of gang rape in a certain species
GS>of whales.  Three whales trap a female and each take turns having sex with
GS>her.  Does this mean that we should accept gang rape "because it is seen
GS>in nature"?

It's interesting that you parallel gang-rape and homosexuality. The harm
of rape is very obvious. Where is the harm of loving a person of
the same gender as yourself?
---
 . SLMR 2.0 . "God created Michigan to train the faithful."
 * KMail 2.94e W-NET HQ, hal9k.ann-arbor.mi.us, 313-663-4173 or 3959
                                                                                                          
----
+------------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| HAL 9000 BBS +1 313 663 4173 or 663 3959 | Four 14.4k v.32bis dial-ins |
| Public Access QWK-to-Usenet gateway      | With PCBoard 14.5aM & uuPCB |
+------------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: harp@netcom.com (Gregory O. Harp)
Subject: Re: Lifestyle Choices and Secular Reasoning
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 16:34:08 GMT

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

>In article <1993Jan4.123444.25149@netcom.com> harp@netcom.com (Gregory O. Harp) writes:

>>Back it up or take it back.  I think you'll find very little religious
>>influence in the lives of most of those who wrote the Constitution.

>I have forwarded to Greg a collection of 3-4 articles which I have collected 
>off the net (mostly annotated) over a few years which indeed do show the 
>huge influence of not just religion, but Christianity, in their lives.  
>Anyone else who would like this, simply mail me and I will forward it.

Oh, I _recommend_ you request it.  It's quite entertaining, actually.
Most of the sources are Christian authors drawing their conclusions
from tidbits that the our forefathers wrote.  These people often
incorrectly equate the words "religion" and "God" with Christianity.
We must excuse them this arrogance.

>There is no question that our founders were extremely Christian.

Not for the sheep who believe anything that any nut who can get a book
published says.
-- 
-----------------Greg-Harp----------------harp@netcom.com------------------
  "I think I've reached that point / Where every word that you write /
  Of every blood dark sea / And every soul black night / And every dream
  you dream me in / And every perfect free from sin / And burning eyes /
  And hearts on fire / Are just the same old song" -- The Cure
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:13068 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:11586 alt.politics.clinton:19644 alt.politics.bush:15569 alt.politics.homosexuality:8993