HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: laurel.schippers@hal9k.ann-arbor.mi.us (Laurel Schippers) 
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Why the "argument fro
Date: 9 Jan 93 05:09:00 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) 

WS>|From: smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith)
WS>|Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,al
WS>|itics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
WS>|Subject: Re: Why the "argument from Nature" matters
WS>|Date: 8 Jan 1993 18:02:33 GMT
WS>|Organization: Colorado Springs IT Center
WS>|Message-ID: <1ikfjpINNrup@hp-col.col.hp.com>
WS>|References: <18330@autodesk.COM>

WS>|What is *its* purpose in the natural scheme of things?

WS>|Walter

What is the purpose of cunnilingus? What about female orgasm? What
is the purpose of the appendix?

Who cares? Not everything is 'functional.'
---
 . 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: mvp@netcom.com (Mike Van Pelt)
Subject: Re: Chelsea's school ...
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 22:02:03 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. 
>
>The school crisis in this country will not be solved nor changed by 
>where Chelsea Clinton studies. 

You're missing the point.  Nobody is criticising Clinton for sending
Chelsea to a private school.  He *should* send her to a private
school.  In his place I would certainly send my child to a private
school, or home school.

He is being criticised because while sending Chelsea to a private
school, he is opposed to making the opportunity to choose a school
without crack dealers in the stairwells, a school where reading,
writing, and arithmatic are taught, available to middle and lower
income people.  If the public schools are good enough that the
masses should be forced to use them, why aren't they good enough
for Chelsea, Mr. Clinton?  And if they aren't good enough for
Chelsea, then why shouldn't everyone have an alternative to them?
-- 
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
From: mykes@shell.portal.com (mike myke schwartz)
Subject: Re: Chelsea's school ...
Organization: Portal Communications Company
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL7]
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 15:12:25 GMT

Will Bralick (wbralick@afit.af.mil) wrote:
: In article <nate.1037@psygate.psych.indiana.edu> nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle) writes:
: |
: |     If they're not interested in taking advantage of the opportunity in 
: | public schools, why is it going to be any different when they transfer 
: | over to private schools? The public schools have their problems, but I 
: | don't think that lack of motivation or placing a low value on education 
: | is one of them. The values school children carry into the classroom have 
: | a definite tendency to reflect the values that the parents display at 
: | home, and I'm not convinced that unmotivated kids are going to be any 
: | better students in private classrooms than they are now in public ones.
: 
: So _all_ the kids are bloody well just going to have to suffer together.
: With school choice, the motivated kids will not have to suffer at the 
: hands of the unmotivated kids.  The parents who care will not have to try 
: to undo the damage done by being forced to put their kids into such an 
: environment.  
: 

The problem isn't so much motivation as it might seem.  We take a lot of
immigrants into the school system who do not have parents who speak english.
To make the problem worse, the number of languages involved makes it very
difficult for a school to teach these kids.  By the time these kids make
it to high school, they better be able to read/write english well enough
to understand the material presented them...

Putting a bunch of vietnamese speaking kids in a classroom together with
a teacher who speaks vietnamese and english makes a lot more sense than
eliminating the choice.  Without the choice, english speaking kids do
get worse educations.  Classes have to be held back so the slowest kids
can keep up...

cheers.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: aap@wam.umd.edu (Alberto Adolfo Pinkas)
Subject: Re: Lifestyle Choices (was  Re: Sexuality)
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 21:12:32 GMT

In article <1993Jan4.194233.8290@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> tip@lead.aichem.arizona.edu (Tom Perigrin) writes:
>In article <1992Dec30.210630.19156@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
>>
>>>Since homosexuality is found in *every* mammalian species, 
>>
>>Source please.
>>
>>Ted
>
>When I was in junior high school debating class I found that trick to be
>very useful, especially when I didn't have a good rational arguement
>with which to respond.


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.

aap

Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:13099 alt.sex:41002 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:11650
From: keithp@octel.com (Keith Perrin)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.sex,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Colorado Amendment2 Query
Date: 5 Jan 93 15:21:02 GMT
Organization: Octel Communications Inc., Milpitas Ca.

In article <1993Jan4.233515.2655@brtph560.bnr.ca> woodstock!chris@mcnc.org writes:

In reference to Colorados Amendment 2

>
>What it does say is basically, "You're gay?  So what?  We don't care.  We won't
>give you any special treatment, nor will we discriminate against you."
>
>
>Chris Fulmer                    

Finally, a very good summation of how the mainstream feel, but boy are you
(and me probably) going to be flamed for being so far away from what is
deemed politically correct in this wonderful age  when everyone feels that
they have the right to force their morality upon you.

KLP
From: mike@execu.execu.com (Mike McCants)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Chelsea's school ...
Date: 12 Jan 93 01:52:57 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Comshare, Inc. Austin Development Center

In article Nathan Engle writes:

>That's her solution. Just do it. One kid at a time.

And what percentage of the $4000/kid does she get?

Wouldn't smaller classes help?  Wouldn't higher pay attract an even
larger number of dedicated teachers?  That is assuming that a
principal had the power to hire and fire.

>Please 
>don't sabotage her hard work in your hurry to shut down the "rat pits and 
>cesspools".

No one's in a hurry and I never used those words.  (But anything
that fit that description ought to be shut down.)

What about the "average" teacher teaching "average" students?

It's not fair to claim the "system" is ok because there are some
good teachers successfully teaching some students.

The sixth-graders didn't seem to be doing so well before she started
helping.  Is this really the "system" you want to perpetuate?  One
in which certain individuals do more than their share and don't get
much credit for it?  Why should the other teachers improve?  Their
students test scores are going up now.  Their jobs are not on the line.
The principal knows all this (I assume), but he has no power to do anything.

I hereby promise to go away and not post any more for a long time.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (kellmeyer steven l)
Subject: Re: Lifestyle Choices and Secular Reasoning 
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 06:12:50 GMT

mike@gordian.com (Michael A. Thomas) writes:

>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...]

That's right laddie.  Read Jacques Barzun.  Read any biography of 
a 17th or 18th century natural philospher (as scientists were then called)

>-- 

>		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)

Steve Kellmeyer
-- 

Steve Kellmeyer 
kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu
From: laurel.schippers@hal9k.ann-arbor.mi.us (Laurel Schippers) 
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Gay rights?
Date: 9 Jan 93 05:22:00 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) 

ML>|   No, they are not protected.  Legally, Heterosexuals are not a "protected
ML>|   minority", this ammendment simply says that having an "alternate" life s
ML>|   does not qualify one as a protected minority.  The situation is much lik
ML>|n
ML>|   I rented an apartment from a place which refused to rent to college stud
ML>|   hardly fair to students, but they do not qualify as a "protected minoity

ML>|Can one be fired strictly for being homosexual in Colorado?
ML>|--


ML>|Matt Landrum, CAD Engineer      | e-mail: mdl@cypress.com
ML>|Cypress Southeast Design Center | office: (601) 324-4609, FAX - 4614
ML>|1 Research Blvd, Suite 200      | "You can get what you want if you
ML>|Starkville, MS  39759           | know how to find it." -- Tower of Power

Matt, two points.

1) When a law is made unconstitutional or stricken, only as much as
is necessary is removed. In other words: if a law bans discrimination
on the basis of sexual orientation, it bans discrimination on
that basis against gays, bis, and straights.  Now you pass a law
that destroys these laws in respect to gays and bis.  It STILL
exists, but now only in respect to straights.

2) Yes, you can be fired for being gay. Under employment law,
you can be fired for ANY reason NOT specifically prohibited.
Unless the statutory law or the Constitution prohibits you
from firing somebody for a particular reason (say, race) then
you can fire them for that reason.
---
 . 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 |
+------------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
From: ARCHER@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer)
Subject: Re: Colorado Amendment2 Query
Organization: University of Tennessee 
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 17:46:10 GMT

In article <YOUNG.93Jan8124848@ssdd475a.erim.org> young@ssdd475a.erim.org (Peter Young) writes:
>Xref: utkux1.utk.edu alt.rush-limbaugh:14124 alt.sex:49780 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:12591
>Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.sex,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
>Path: utkux1.utk.edu!darwin.sura.net!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!destroyer!csd475b!newsserv!young
>From: young@ssdd475a.erim.org (Peter Young)
>Subject: Re: Colorado Amendment2 Query
>Message-ID: <YOUNG.93Jan8124848@ssdd475a.erim.org>
>In-reply-to: greg_bradt@msmgate.mrg.uswest.com's message of 04 Jan 93 20:25:05 GMT
>Sender: news@newsspool.erim.org
>Organization: Environmental Research Institute of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
>References: <1993Jan01.221028.4886@wattres.SJ.CA.US>
>        <1993Jan4.152505.22773@uswmrg.mrg.uswest.com.mrg.uswest.com>
>Date: 8 Jan 93 12:48:48
>Lines: 20
>In article <1993Jan4.152505.22773@uswmrg.mrg.uswest.com.mrg.uswest.com> greg_bradt@msmgate.mrg.uswest.com (Greg Bradt aka The Lensman) writes:
>
>>   As you can see, the amendment was cleverly phrased to imply that it prevents
>>   gays from acquiring special rights, but if you exclude the filler, you get:
>
>>   Colorado...shall not adopt any statute...whereby homosexual...practices or
>>   relationships...shall entitle any person... to claim of discrimination.
>
>Thank you, Greg.  So in Colorado, as I read it, an employer can say to
>anyone, gay or not, "I will not hire you because you are homosexual,"
>and there is absolutely no recourse in the law for that person.
>Hmmm.... I wonder if we will see a mysterious increase in the number
>of black, Jewish or female gays in Colorado.  It oughtta work.

Why should an employer be forced to hire ANYONE, regardless of the reason 
why?  It's his business.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Vote Dempublican, it's easier than thinking.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:13296 talk.abortion:54583
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 13:26:06 GMT

entropy@world.std.com (The Entropic one) writes:

>In article <C0Ax5F.9K6@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (kellmeyer steven l) writes:
>>howard@netcom.com (Howard Berkey) writes:
>>
>>Historians agree that western science was defined and structured by
>>Christian concepts, beliefs, and attitudes.  Without Christianity, western
>>science, as such, would simply not exist.  

>No it would have advanced for 2000 years instead of stagnating under the
>weight of the church. The church has a history of fighting scientific
>discovery, all the way from Galileo to the present.

Bull.  The church has a history of being just as resistant to radical
new ideas as is the existing scientific establishment.  Human nature
doesn't change much even when it _is_ wearing a priest's collar.  Newton
did absolutely horrible things to his intellectual opponents, Cantor 
committed suicide because of his peers ridicule, Lister died in the 
poorhouse because his peers thought his ideas stupid, Mendel was ignored
until well after his death - the list of scientific persecutions by
scientists is not exactly short.  Barbara McClintock's work was ignored
for half a century - if not for an unusually long life span, she would
have died in ridicule as well.

Yes, the Church fought ideas it thought to be wrong.  But it also preserved
knowledge when no one else was.  It promoted research and learning through
a vast network of monasteries and schools.  For centuries, Jesuit teachers
were the standard against which all others were measured.  Anyone who states
otherwise is sorely lacking in historical knowledge and completely 
misunderstands the importance of the Church in the growth of scientific
thought.

>Scientists can be closed minded at times, but they generally don't torture
>and condemn you to hell when your expermental results disagree with there
>theories.. 

Tell it to Leibniz.  Tell it to Cantor.  

>>To say that religous reasoning is an oxymoron, or that secular
>>reasoning is somehow superior, is to profess an ignorance so profound that
>>it boggles the mind.

>So what is religious reasoning? 
>Basically it is squabling over the meanings of passages in a 2000 year old
>book. 

Careful where you walk, ladies and gentlemen, lest you stumble into
the great depths of this man's ignorance.  You speak whereof you  know
nothing.  Why is it that a person who gets technical knowledge suddenly
thinks he is an authority on subjects he has never studied?

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

Steve Kellmeyer        
-- 

Steve Kellmeyer 
kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: casivils@lescsse.jsc.nasa.gov (craig sivils)
Subject: Re: using the bible to advance bigotry
Organization: Lockheed Engineering and Sciences
Date:  4 Jan 93 19:19:25 GMT

In <1993Jan4.024856.6491@netcom.com> teddybur@netcom.com (John Sanger) 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
>>

>Because you insist that all others must have the same views as you hold and
>you go to the extreme of trying to legislate them into being.  When you and
>yours stop trying to force your views onto everyone else then the tolerance
>will be there.

Tolerance for what, your view?  And where did I mention legislation?
There will always be people with different opinions, but I again ask the same
question (in simpler words).  Alright, lets suppose that we don't use the Bible
as a basis for morality.  Where does that lead us and what do we stand on?
( I'm not interested in hearing about some other religious book, the argument
is -can a moral system exist with out religion and where would it lead-.

                              Craig

Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:13132 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:11699 alt.politics.clinton:19688 alt.politics.bush:15610 alt.politics.homosexuality:9035
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: 6 Jan 1993 12:15:12 GMT
Organization: Colorado Springs IT Center
NNTP-Posting-Host: fajita19.cs.itc.hp.com

jackies@fc.hp.com (Jackie Sheddy X6958) writes:
> 	Excuse me, but I never said I considered  the Rev.  Peters to be
> 	representative  of all  Christians.  I  simply  stated  that  he
> 	advocates death to homosexuals.  The "person" is a MINISTER!  He
> 	preaches  this  sh*t to people  that live not 15 miles  from me.
> 	Personally, I would be happy if all Christians were as caring as
> 	they claim to be.

Jackie, 

In the article you followd up to, I had responded to this: 

: rj24@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Robert  Johnston) writes:
: > When someone says that people of my type are not worthy of life, I do not
: > make that person my friend. This is exactly the attitude of many christians
: > towards homosexuals.

I objected to Robert's "many Christians"; to which you followed up with Rev. 
Peters.  I've never heard of Rev. Peters, nor do I feel he is representative 
of "many" Christians.  Finding a fanatic who advocates "death to homosexuals" 
doesn't mean "many" Christians do.  And adding "Personally, I would be happy 
if all Christians were as caring as they claim to be" came across as 
reinforcing that you feel "most/many/all" Christians are more like Peters 
than they are like their "professed" way of thinking.  I'm not saying you 
meant it that way, but that's the way it came across.  

Walter
 
 
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: dillhoff@aslws01.asl.dl.nec.com (Doug Dillhoff)
Subject: Re: Sexuality
Organization: NEC America, Inc Irving TX
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 23:08:28 GMT

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.

-- 
Doug Dillhoff            Any opinions expressed are strictly my own.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: gsmith@lauren.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de (Gene W. Smith)
Subject: Re: Showering in the Military (Re: Gays in the Military..what nobody is talking about: )
Organization: IWR, University of Heidelberg, Germany
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 93 17:48:50 GMT

In article <1992Dec30.043011.2287@anasazi.com> john@anasazi.com
writes:

>Oh my, another social engineer. The military doesn't just train young men
>and women to be responsible - it selects those who are and hands them
>the responsibility. 

If the people the military selects are responsible, then the whole
question of gays and lesbians in the military is a non-issue.  The
arguments against this all assume that many of the people in the
military are irrational and irresponsible.

-- 
     Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/IWR/Ruprecht-Karls University 
               gsmith@kalliope.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de
From: paul@hsh.com
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Does Rush ever post here?
Date: 7 Jan 93 22:19:57 GMT
Organization: HSH Associates

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)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality