HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
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: 30 Dec 1992 23:08:27 GMT
Organization: Colorado Springs IT Center
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: fajita19.cs.itc.hp.com

snodgras@lclark.edu (Bil Snodgrass) writes:
> >I've seen articles saying 
> >that if a friend can only 'tolerate' your homosexuality, and not accept 
> >it as ok, then you shouldn't be their friend.  I really think this 
> >is too bad. 
> 
> My friends love me and visa versa....love me....visa versa....LOVE ME...

Meaning you can only love people who you accept everything about? Does 
this preclude your loving a 'phobe?  How about if that 'phobe is your 
mother or father, brother or sister?  What does it mean to you to 
'LOVE ME'?  

Walter 

(I hope I'm not bringing up anything that is *too* far out of line 
with your post...)
From: dbernard@clesun.Central.Sun.COM (Dave Bernard)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: JESUS IS THE REASON FOR THE SEASON
Date: 29 Dec 1992 17:02:48 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems
Distribution: world
Reply-To: dbernard@clesun.Central.Sun.COM
NNTP-Posting-Host: clesun.central.sun.com

Bill Anderson writes:

>As for the B of R- it most certainly was enacted to limit 
>majority rule, since the government is an instrument of the
>majority, in theory.  

No, the Bill or Rights very explicitly limits the power
of the government.  It says or implies nothing about
protecting any minority interests.  Note that in many cases
the government does not represent the majority interest.  Of
course in those instances the laws are usually made by the
courts, not by elected officials.  Thus, the government may
or may not represent the interest of the majority.  What it
always does is to represent the interest of the government.

Other than that, what do I care what devil worshipers want to
do on public property, as long as it doesn't hurt anyone?

Note that Secular Humanism has been recognized as a religion
by the US Supreme Court.

	Dave
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: elf@halcyon.com (Elf Sternberg)
Subject: Re: Sexuality
Originator: elf@halcyon.com
Organization: Pendor, UnLtd.
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 04:17:38 GMT

In article <1992Dec30.192133.8061@asl.dl.nec.com>
     dillhoff@aslws01.asl.dl.nec.com (Doug Dillhoff) writes:

>The point is, I don't want someone teaching my children values that
>do not reflect the christian values that this country was founded on.

   "The United States is in no sense based on the Christian Religion."

            - The Treaty of Tripoli, article III.
              Ratified by Congress February 7th, 1797 and signed
              into law that same day by President John Adams.

   The Treaty of Tripoli is housed in the National Archives of the
United States of America, and is a legal and binding document.  Copies
may be attained in both English and Arabic by writing the National
Archives.

            Elf !!!
--
elf@halcyon.com  (Elf Sternberg)

Then, I was inspired.               God, thy will is hard
Now, I'm sad and tired.             But you hold every card.
Listen, surely I've exceeded        I will drink your cup of poison.
Expectations.                       Nail me to your cross and break me.
Tried for three years,              Bleed me, beat me.
Seems like thirty.                  Kill me.
Could you ask as much               Take me now.
From any other man?                 Before I change my mind.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,soc.college
From: djrea@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (david.j.rea)
Subject: Re: Discrimination
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 19:26:02 GMT
Followup-To: ixcim!catload

Jim,

To avoid sounding like your father, or rather mine, if you are really
burnt out on school, taking a break would help. But, you only have one
more year to go for your BS, if that's what your going for. Why take 
a year away from college to work full time! Finish the year and then
take your break.

The reason I say this is, I took a break. It was very hard for me to 
return to school. Once you get into a mode it is hard to change this
mode. I am now 28 and am still working towards my degree. Almost done
though.

As far as cutting your hair, as long as you keep it clean, it should not
matter how you wear it. Although ;-)  keep in mind that if you are trying
to land a job that is high visibility were you are representing the 
company's image in some way, the hair might effect the final solution. I
feel that it's the company's right to have a particular image if they
want it. They can't MAKE you cut your hair, but they do not have to hire
you either.

Why not finish school; this will give you a year to think about the hair
situation and maybe the company's will change ;-)

David
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: rj24@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Robert  Johnston)
Subject: Re: Sexuality
Reply-To: rj24@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Robert  Johnston)
Organization: Columbia University
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 06:27:30 GMT

In article <C03wnu.7pJ@NeoSoft.com> jpsb@NeoSoft.com (Jim Shirreffs) writes:
>>Now...are yo willing to allow a class on sexuality that shows
>>homosexuality and heterosexuality in the same unbiased light, a
>>class that would be optional....?
>
>What a waist of tax dollars! Pre-schoolers? If you insist, ok, but let us
>not forget the *optional*.
>
>jim shirreffs

Why is it a waste of money? Because you don't like it? Government is not
needed to spend money on the things you like. You would do that anyway.
It is the job of the government to spend money on things you don't like
or can't afford, and are good for you anyway.
From: dbernard@clesun.Central.Sun.COM (Dave Bernard)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: JESUS IS THE REASON FOR THE SEASON
Date: 29 Dec 1992 17:05:26 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems
Distribution: world
Reply-To: dbernard@clesun.Central.Sun.COM
NNTP-Posting-Host: clesun.central.sun.com

Bill Anderson writes:

>: Actually, no one knows exactly when Jesus was born, but most scholars favor
>: the springtime.  Since in the days when the celebration was set no one knew
>: the actual birthday, they appropriated some handy holiday season- Yule, Saturnalia,
>: Winter Solstice.  Note that the Church did not decide to make Yule a Christian
>: holiday at all; merely the actual day was appropriated to celebrate a Christian,
>: not a pagan, feast.
>: 
>: 	Dave       
>
>In a way, they did decide just that- many Christian holidays and 
>feast days overlap with pagan festivals, and this was done 
>deliberately in a lot of cases.  The idea was to sort of ease
>the newly converted into the thing.

More importantly, already-established holiday dates were appropriated
to directly counter pagan holiday dates.  

	Dave


Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: teddybur@netcom.com (John Sanger)
Subject: Re: Showering in the Military (Re: Gays in the Military..what nobody is talking about: )
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 00:43:16 GMT

In article <1992Dec30.212551.14782@unet.net.com> stank@perrault.unet.com (Stan Knight) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec23.183439.17001@anasazi.com> 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?
>
>
>Where do you get this stuff from Brian? For your information ALL branches of
>the service have sexual conduct rules for ALL service members which are 
>enforceable on or off base. Sodomy is one such offense. Further, Clinton has 
>never said that he would lift such sexual conduct rules for gays. What he has 
>said, many times, is that there will be changes in these rules. What he wants 
>to do is to make them much STRICTER for EVERYONE. If Tailhook is any example I 
>would say it's long over due.  
>

We seem to be mixing regs and laws in this discussion.  The policy of not
allowing homosexuals in the military is by regulations and not by law.
This is what Clinton will change by executive order.  The prohibition
against sodomy is law as enacted by the US Congress in the UCMJ.
This can only be changed by the US Congress and hopefully with the
assistance of the President through pressure and, of course, his signature
on the legislation.



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

Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: stank@perrault.unet.com (Stan Knight)
Subject: Re: Showering in the Military (Re: Gays in the Military..what nobody is talking about: )
Organization: Network Equipment Technologies, Redwood City
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 02:15:24 GMT

In article <1992Dec31.004316.3520@netcom.com> teddybur@netcom.com (John Sanger) writes:
>In article <1992Dec30.212551.14782@unet.net.com> stank@perrault.unet.com (Stan Knight) writes:
>>What he has 
>>said, many times, is that there will be changes in these rules. What he wants 
>>to do is to make them much STRICTER for EVERYONE. If Tailhook is any example I 
>>would say it's long over due.  
>>
>
>We seem to be mixing regs and laws in this discussion.  The policy of not
>allowing homosexuals in the military is by regulations and not by law.
>This is what Clinton will change by executive order.  The prohibition
>against sodomy is law as enacted by the US Congress in the UCMJ.
>This can only be changed by the US Congress and hopefully with the
>assistance of the President through pressure and, of course, his signature
>on the legislation.
>
>
>
>Ciao!
>	John S. :^)
>	teddybur@netcom.com

Very true John. What I was at least trying to refer to was the sexual conduct
rules for military personnel as outlined in that little manual you recieve
when you hit boot camp. Clinton has promised to make such *rules* for
*military personnel* much stricter then the existing ones in order to help
quale the fears of those opposed to allowing open gays to serve. Makeing rules
and inforceing them has always been 2 different things. 

Stan Knight
|Closet door squeaks as it opens--entrenched troops yell, "OUTCOMING!"| 
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: stank@perrault.unet.com (Stan Knight)
Subject: Re: Lifestyle Choices (was  Re: Sexuality)
Organization: Network Equipment Technologies, Redwood City
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 01:58:06 GMT

In article <1992Dec30.234500.21163@anasazi.com> briand@anasazi.com (Brian Douglass) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec30.185545.26789@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> ecl@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (Evelyn C. Leeper) writes:
>>>All people are asking is that unless you can come up with some
>>>*secular* reason for why their lifestyle choice is bad, you grant
>>>them the same rights they are willing to grant you: the right to
>>>live their life without persecution.

>Tell that to a smoker.  Clearly this is a lifestyle choice, and yet
>non-smokers have persecuted them out of most public places.  Why?  Because
>non-smokers find smoking offensive, smelly, and possibly dangerous to their
                                                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>health.  
 ^^^^^^
Well ggeeeeee whiz Brian. Things that are possibly dangerous to the health of
the general public are banned all over the place. Amazingly enough a majority
think that this is a good thing! What the heck does that have to do with 
whether or not gays have the right not to be discriminated against?

>But in this battle the rights of a clear minority, have had little
>weight in comparison to the greater good of the public.  That is the rights
>of the majority have been deemed more important than the rights of a
>minority.  

Smokers are discriminated against due a demostratable reason. They could
actually be harming someone else by smoking. Evelyn's post ask for a 
secular reason why we should allow gays to be discriminated against. Is this
the best answer you can come up with? BTW if you have some proof that gays
are dangerous to the public's health, simply by the fact that they are gay,
I'm sure we would all like to know what that proof is.

Stan Knight
|Still waiting for that secular reason|

Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: rj24@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Robert  Johnston)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Sexuality
Date: 31 Dec 92 20:30:04 GMT
Reply-To: rj24@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Robert  Johnston)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Columbia University

In article <1hv2l3INN4m8@hp-col.col.hp.com> smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes:
>rj24@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Robert  Johnston) writes:
>> Walter, you seem to be missing the point. A child's personality and 
>> biases are largely set by about the age of six. starting to teach such
>> matters in high school will have limited effects at best. If such 
>> matters are to be taught, they must be taught early on in life.
>
>So what do we teach?  Do we teach that homosexuality is good, or 
>bad?  Or instead, why don't we teach that all people should be 
>respected and treated equally, period?  Then, as kids confront 
>those who are different from them in the future, they have that 
>base to fall back on?  
>
>Walter
>
Gee, Walter, you seem to have almost gotten the point here. A few comments

1 Part of teaching children to respect all people is to teach them about
the diversity of people. They must be taught of the existance of specific 
groups of people that are different from the child. Otherwise, the child
may assume that the label "people" does not apply to this other group.

2 Homosexuality, like heterosexuality and bisexuality, is neither
bad nor good. Would you comment on the 'goodness' of red hair vs. black?
light skin vs. dark? There is no value judgement to be made here.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: young@ssdd475a.erim.org (Peter Young)
Subject: Re: Rush Courts the FAAAR Right
In-reply-to: graham@venus.iucf.indiana.edu's message of Sat, 19 Dec 1992 20:22:12 GMT
Organization: Environmental Research Institute of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
	<BzIwzv.Msz@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>
Date: 21 Dec 92 12:33:42

In article <BzIwzv.Msz@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> graham@venus.iucf.indiana.edu (JIM GRAHAM) writes:

>   Not to get into a religious debate, but people could interpret the ten
>   commandments as good, common sense, irrespective of any religious
>   affiliation, couldn't they?

No.  "Thou shalt have no other gods before me."  "Thou shalt [observe
the Sabbath and keep it holy]."  (Not sure of the wording on this
one.) How do you make these non-religious?  Or even
non-denominational?

--
Peter Young
young@erim.org
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: root@june.cmp.rpi.edu (J.R. Ordon)
Subject: Re: Sexuality
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 20:14:12 GMT

In article <1992Dec30.194703.3067@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov> fogarty@sir-c.jpl.nasa.gov (Tim Fogarty) writes:
>
>In article <1992Dec30.162502.6756@asl.dl.nec.com>, 
>dillhoff@aslws01.asl.dl.nec.com (Doug Dillhoff) writes:
>|>
>|>Unlike heterosexuality, which is dictated by nature, homosexuality
>|>is a lifestyle choice and should not be presented as such to school
>|>
>
>What evidence do you have of this ?  And how do you dismiss the scientific
>evidence that suggests otherwise ?  I would really like to know.
>
>
>--
>Tim Fogarty
>Sys Man and Sys Admin for the EGSE in the POCC at JSC for SRL-1, STS-59
>FOGARTY@SIR-C.JPL.NASA.GOV

Schools shouldn't be teaching homosexuality,heterosexuality, OR any sexuality
for that matter. Religion shouldn't be taught either. If any social issues
should be taught, it should be to basically follow the "golden rule".
Geez, we've got enough High School graduates who can't read,write, or balance
a checkbook, let alone be ready to be a success in todays ever-changing
technological world.  Let's get the schools to teach the basics again,
and leave this social engineering out. It seems that Public School 
administrators think parents are basically idiots, unable to teach their
child right from wrong. This is true is some cases, but they should direct
their efforts for more parent involvement. My brother is a school teacher in
an urban district, he say's that the biggest obstacle he faces with his
problem students is that their parents need a course on how to be parents!!
Some of these parents are still kids themselves.

Let's get back to basics and leave the social agendas out of the classroom!

-------------------------------------
J.R. Ordon
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:12559 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:10975 alt.politics.clinton:19292 alt.politics.bush:15133 alt.politics.homosexuality:8620
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 01:58:42 GMT
Organization: Colorado Springs IT Center
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: fajita19.cs.itc.hp.com

snodgras@lclark.edu (Bil Snodgrass) writes:
> That isn't my opinion.......Why don't you respect and allow me to have
> my values....

No one is denying you your values, or your freedom to teach them to your 
kids.   I certainly respect your right to have your own values, and to 
not be persecuted or discriminated against.  On the other hand, from 
reading your posts (to me and others) you seem an incredibly angry and 
hostile man, who has an axe to grind against the world; especially any 
part that doesn't favor *you*.  

> I would like for my child to bring up from day one
> to love all humanbeings......

Ditto here.  

> Minded should be able to send their children to school and not have them
> being taught values that conflict with the values they have in their
> home.  But to me you say NO!!!!  

Spare me the rhetoric.  

> How dare you......

Ooooooo...I guess I'm just an evil, Rush-loving, gay-bashing, breeder-'phobe..

Walter

Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: lazarus@wixer.cactus.org (Michael Lax)
Subject: Re: Education Regarding Alternative Family Units (Re: The Analogy Betwixt Gays & Blacks (Re: Children in Same-gender Families))
Organization: Real/Time Communications
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 93 16:14:54 GMT

Doug Holtsinger (dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu) wrote:
: In article <1992Dec31.013739.7064@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> 
: cfthb@ux1.cts.eiu.edu (Howard Black) writes:
: >wgb3@pyuxf.uucp (25336-buoni) writes:
: 
: >> What is relevant to this discussion is whether or
: >> not the school system should be teaching social values traditionally
: >> dealt with in the home.  I say NO!
: 
: > And I say, again, that describing a fact != teaching a social value.
: > Homosexuals exist..always have, always will..this can be taught without
: > passing judgement.  
: 
: Could the existence of certain bible passages which condemn 
: homosexuality be taught in the schools without passing judgement? 
: What about teaching the existence of Creationism?   
:
The Bible is a "fact" only in that it is literature.  Some of it
can be read as history, that which can be verified.  The rest is
mere conjecture and opinion.  If you're going to teach
Creationism, then you ought to teach Alchemy and Magick.  If you're
going to make kids read the bible, you'd better be prepared to teach
them the Koran, as well as the liturgy from Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism,
Satanism, Wicca, et al.  And _then_ teach them that none of these are
facts, only beliefs founded in unobservable absolutes.   
: 
: Who decides which controversial subjects should be taught in the 
: public schools?   What makes you think that public school officials
: won't teach YOUR children about subjects which YOU have objections to? 
:
Good point.  I object to Creationism being taught as science because
it isn't science.  I would be very concerned about how a religious
studies course would be taught - and by whom, but I would be willing
to discuss it.  A wide variety (granted, it would be impossible to 
discuss them all) of faiths would have to be studies, and on equal
ground, and it would need to be made clear that all faiths are
equal, and that they have no basis in fact. 
: 
: >Howard Black
: 
: 
: Doug Holtsinger
======================================================================
"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)
From: dbernard@clesun.Central.Sun.COM (Dave Bernard)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Columbus vs Indians (was Re: PC lives)
Date: 31 Dec 1992 20:56:23 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems
Distribution: world
Reply-To: dbernard@clesun.Central.Sun.COM
NNTP-Posting-Host: clesun.central.sun.com

Bill Anderson writes:

>Missions were esablished for a lot of different reasons, Dave.
>Sometimes they were there largely to pacify the natives. Sometimes
>the surrounding natives were forced to work for the Spanish.
>Sometimes the clergy tortured and executed those who refused to
>convert, and a few priests were hoping to become rich and 
>powerful.
>I'm not claiming that every Spanish priest in the new world was a
>raging monster, set on genocide.  Are you claiming they were all
>saints?

	Indians enslaved by the Spanish civil authorities is not the
	same as enslavement by the Missions.  I think you might be
	hard pressed to find cases of torturing of those who refused
	to convert, as performed by the clergy.

	Dave