HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: snodgras@lclark.edu (Bil Snodgrass)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Sexuality
Date: 30 Dec 92 23:26:28 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Lewis & Clark College, Portland OR

In article <1ht66dINN65k@hp-col.col.hp.com> smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes:
>snodgras@lclark.edu (Bil Snodgrass) writes:
>> Pre-school.... I mean they are optional... Some parents with one way
>> of value system might believe it is best to start their children at
>> an early age...so they will send their kids to the pre-school class.
>> They have that option.  Those who want to send their kids at a later
>> age will send their children when they see fit or they may even opted
>> out of sending their children period.......
>> 
>> 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....?
>
>Not in pre-school, or early elementary school.   Even some of the people 
>posting in favor of COTR say that first graders aren't able to understand 
>sexuality.   I think it should be left to high school, if it is going to 
>be done.  In your example, who is going to teach the class to the preschoolers? 
>
>Walter
>

That isn't my opinion.......Why don't you respect and allow me to have
my values....I would like for my child to bring up from day one
to love all humanbeings......I agreed to the fact that Mr. and Mrs. Closed
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!!!!  How dare you......
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: ryonkers@mis.mi04.zds.com (Russell Yonkers)
Subject: Re: Showering in the Military (Re: Gays in the Military..what nobody is talking about: )
Organization: Zenith Data Systems
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 19:00:50 GMT

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.

If it is ok for gays and hetero's to shower together then it should be ok
for males and females to shower together.... opps I forgot that would
be sexual harrassment for males and females to shower together because
the males may find the females attractive and lust after them.  This 
would not be PC in the least so we must have seperate facilitys for 
the females.  But we know of course that the gays would never find a 
hetero attractive because he is not gay and would never lust after 
him.  I guess this is equal rights.  We know that the PC crowd is
totally fair and just (NOT!). 
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: fritzs@microsoft.com (Fritz Sands)
Subject: Re: Lifestyle Choices (was  Re: Sexuality)
Date: 31 Dec 92 18:07:46 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation
Distribution: usa

In article <1992Dec30.191743.7958@asl.dl.nec.com> dillhoff@aslws01.asl.dl.nec.com (Doug Dillhoff) writes:
| 
| All I am saying is that unless you can show me that homosexual sex
| can create life (as the heterosexual sex act does) than it is an
| un-natural act. Homosexual sex uses a human output device (waste
| disposal) as an input device. This is not natural and therefore
| should not be considered normal and should not be taught as an
| alternate lifestyle. 

This is starting to get beyond my silliness quotient.

Anal and oral sex are hardly confined to gays.  Are you stipulating
that the *only* form of "natural" sex is penile-vaginal intercourse?

BTW -- the human mouth is an input device.  So, is oral sex natural?
If so, a lot of gay sex (including most lesbian sex) would count as
natural.

Insemination with a turkey baster can create life.  Is this natural?

Foreplay does not create life.  Is this unnatural?

I have a vasectomy.  Am I left with only unnatural sexual activities,
since I can no longer inseminate?

   Fritz


Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: harryo@cbnewse.cb.att.com (harold.r.holm)
Subject: Re: Taxing medical benefits ... NOT
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 02:36:49 GMT
Summary: Yeah??  Well, we'll be watching...and *waiting* just in case

In article <1992Dec19.195620.6688@seq.uncwil.edu>, session@seq.uncwil.edu (Zack C. Sessions) writes:
> 
> Ted Krueger posted a few days ago a comment concerning a New York Times
> article he saw in his local paper. According to Krueger the story said
> that "the Democrats" were planning on "taxing health benefits" thus
> actually increasing taxes on the middle class, something Clinton has
> promised to avoid at all possible cost. Well, looks like he spoke too
> soon.
> 
> In my local paper (which is owned by the NYT) today there was a story
> which directly contradicts these assertions. The headline was "Transition
> aide says Clinton won't put tax on medical benefits". In the story, Judy
> Feder, who is Clinton's transition team health policy chief, said that
> President-elect Clinton is not planning to seek new taxes on employee
> medical benefits to pay for health care reform. She said, "That was not
> contemplated in the campaign, and there has been no change in that."
> 
> The story does mention that "some reformers have advocated taxing high-benefit
> health plans".
> 
Just a word here to let YOU Clinton PEOPLE that there will be those of
us who are going to be watching this *real close*, 'cause if Mr. Clinton
and the Democratic leadership/support base (i.e. YOU PEOPLE) by some 
chance *do* try any scheme like this, the American taxpayers will see to 
it that this becomes a *big* spadeful in the digging of the Democratic
Party's grave in 1996.  So don't seriously entertain any slick, 
sock-the-worker Robin-Hood ideas like this, or it will end up burning
its perpetrators' political rear ends not all that far down the road.  
Really, it's not nice to poke a dragon that can breath fire----and 
anything like this would constitute a mighty hard poke. 

                                                      H.R. Holm
*standard disclaimers, etc*
any replies preferred via the group*
From: f0358@desire.wright.edu
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Just my musing....
Date: 22 Dec 92 08:57:18 EST
Organization:  Wright State University 

Well, I think I'll probably be flamed into the 21st century for this but I just
have to get this off my chest:



		Rush Limbaugh is a MORON!!!!!!!


Sorry,
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!!!!!
Peace on earth and Goodwill to men (if that's not too liberal for y'all)
From: paul@hsh.com
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Taxing medical benefits ... NOT
Date: 29 Dec 92 13:49:13 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: HSH Associates

In article <1992Dec24.184603.16096@jcnpc.cmhnet.org>, mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org (Mike A. McAngus) writes:
> John Switzer (jrs@netcom.com) wrote:
> : In article <1992Dec19.195620.6688@seq.uncwil.edu> session@seq.uncwil.edu (Zac
> k C. Sessions) writes:
> : >
> : >In my local paper (which is owned by the NYT) today there was a story
> : >which directly contradicts these assertions. The headline was "Transition
> : >aide says Clinton won't put tax on medical benefits". In the story, Judy
> : >Feder, who is Clinton's transition team health policy chief, said that
> : >President-elect Clinton is not planning to seek new taxes on employee
> : >medical benefits to pay for health care reform. She said, "That was not
> : >contemplated in the campaign, and there has been no change in that."
> :
> : Another example of Clinton talking out of both sides of his mouth, because
> : Friday's Wall Street Journal quotes Clinton as saying he is considering endin
> g
> : the tax exemption on at least part of a company's health care costs. End of
> : exemption translates into more taxes being paid and thus higher taxes. This
> : translates into a defacto tax on a person's benefits that are above the
> : basic minimum which Clinton and his advisers have yet to settle on.

> 
> Another example of a consevative putting the worst spin possible on what
> Clinton says.  Removing tax exemptions for health care costs is a tax increase
> on businesses not an increase on middle class tax payers.  Thus, the statement
> by Clinton and the statement by Judy Feder do not contradict each other.

Another example of a liberal who does not understand How Business Works. 
Let's see if Mr. Switzer was paying attention in Economics 101.  Attention,
class:  When you greatly increase the cost of doing business, most
companies will A) absorb it, or B) pass on that increase in the form of
higher prices.  Anyone? Anyone? 

------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ 

Paul Havemann   Internet: paul@hsh.com   
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: fritzs@microsoft.com (Fritz Sands)
Subject: Re: Education Regarding Alternative Family Units (Re: The Analogy Betwixt Gays & Blacks (Re: Children in Same-gender Families))
Date: 30 Dec 92 19:11:05 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation
Distribution: usa

In article <1hq1c7INNnba@hp-col.col.hp.com> smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes:
| fritzs@microsoft.com (Fritz Sands) writes:
| > It is, IMO, imperative, however, that
| > the second concept -- that gays, moral or not, live together, can be quite
| > happy and "normal" and can be good parents raising "normal" children --
| > be taught.  
| 
| 1) At what age should this be taught? 

Good question.  We started young.  Our 5 year old knows that families come
in all sizes.  Of the three weddings he has attended, one of them had
the societally-approved one penis and one vagina among the participants.

| 2) What makes it imperitive? 

Because the child will likely have classmates who have gay parents, and
because the child may grow up and find hirself gay.  BTW -- I do not
claim that orientation is completely automatic nor completely choosable.

| 3) Should it also be taught that bisexuals do those things? 

Well, facts are sort of nice things for schools to teach, aren't they?
Are there facts (not opinions, but facts) that schools should refrain
from teaching?

|  How would 
|    you do it? 

The "Children of the Rainbow" curriculum certainly seems appropriate.

   Fritz
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.correct
From: session@seq.uncwil.edu (Zack C. Sessions)
Subject: Re: "My Cabinet" by Clinton (was Re: Affirmative action is dead)
Organization: Univ. of North Carolina @ Wilmington
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 18:15:31 GMT

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

>Anyone remember Clinton saying "My cabinet will more accurately reflect 
>the public?"

>I wonder how many of his cabinet members will represent the 57% who did 
>not vote for him.

Come now, Ted. Reflect does not mean the same thing as represent, now
does it?

What Clinton was OBVIOUSLY referring to was how many women and minorities
he would eventually have on his cabinet.

NOT what type or who it was going to REPRESENT.

-- 
Zack Sessions
sessions@seq.uncwil.edu
University of North Carolina at Wilmington (Alumnus)
"Good health is merely the slowest form of dying."
From: djrea@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (david.j.rea)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: RUSH=FAG!
Summary: Homophobic
Date: 30 Dec 92 15:23:46 GMT
Organization: AT&T

In article <mjenkins.725672680@cunews>, mjenkins@alfred.carleton.ca (Michael Jenkinson) writes:
> In <2827.97.uupcb@hal9k.ann-arbor.mi.us> greg.mable@hal9k.ann-arbor.mi.us (Greg Mable)  writes:
> >Does the big guy ever get on this conference or is he too fat
> >and stupid to use a computer?  I heard he's gay and his lover
> >is a black man (and a democrat)!  Hope he uses a condom!
 
> Here, ladies and gentleman, is the reason we need a moderated
> conservative newsgroup.
> 
> Michael

Please, everyone, ignor the above posting. It was obviously done by a
Homophobic, Dittohead, Republican ;-) I don't think we need a moderator
for this news group. Most of the postings are semi-nice. If an occasional
individual wishes to spout claims that are equivelent to that of a
5th grader, then they have that right. Just turn the other cheek,
people, turn the other cheek...

"Can't we all just get along?"  -Rodney King

David
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:  3 Jan 93 20:57:07 GMT


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 homosexuality
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 
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:12832 alt.politics.clinton:19487
From: marcr@studsys.mscs.mu.edu (Marc Rassbach)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Education Regarding Alternative Family Units (Re: The Analogy Betwixt Gays & Blacks (Re: Children in Same-gender Families))
Date: 3 Jan 1993 03:23:47 GMT
Organization: Marquette University - Department MSCS
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: studsys.mscs.mu.edu

In article <1993Jan1.022504.20320@ncsu.edu> dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>Here we have the classic "Susan Garvin" logic:  pick out an 
>extremist bogey man from one side of the issue, declare them
>to be the "leader" or "patron saint" of a mythical "movement",  
>and then assign their views to anyone who disagrees with
>Susan Garvin on the issue.  

This is in a newsgroup dedicated to Rush Limbaugh.  As he uses
this tactic on his shows, why not allow Susan to use Rush's tactic





-- 
Marc Rassbach    marcr@studsys.mscs.mu.edu    If you take my advice, that
MS-DOS - it's not   marc@milestn.mil.wi.us    is your problem, not mine!
my problem!     If it was said on UseNet, it must be true.
   Unix - It's a nice place to live, but you don't want to visit there.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: entropy@world.std.com (The Entropic one)
Subject: Re: Lifestyle Choices and Secular Reasoning
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 05:15:14 GMT

In article <C095nK.82y@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (kellmeyer steven l) writes:
>lfoard@Turing.ORG (Lawrence C. Foard) writes:
>
>>In article <C07oBz.F74@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (kellmeyer steven l) writes:
>>>ecl@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (Evelyn C. Leeper) writes:
>>>
>>>>In article <1992Dec30.162502.6756@asl.dl.nec.com> dillhoff@aslws01.asl.dl.nec.com (Doug Dillhoff) writes:
>
>>>Why is *secular* reasoning superior to religious reasoning? 
>
>>I'm sitting 10 feet from a machine that can produce 3d images of your
>>internal organs, it was designed by secular reasoning.
>
>And it was designed in a country founded upon a belief in God.  

I'm not sure which religion is most common in Japan but I doubt you would
consider it "your" god.

>The 
>country founded upon atheism and a belief in man no longer exists.

Russia was founded upon marxism not atheism. Atheism generally implies
critical thought, something which Russia wasn't famous for.

>>>What about infibulation, the practice of mutilating female genitalia
>>>that is common in Africa?  Secularly speaking, we have no right to 
>>>condemn another culture's practices. 
>
>>Who said that? 
>
>Secular logic.

Strange the secular ethical systems I know of say nothing about this.
How do you derive this from utilitarian ethics?

-- 
------  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        
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: jdahl@rchland.vnet.ibm.com (Jared Dahl)
Subject: Re: Sexuality
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 21:05:21 GMT
Distribution: usa
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: IBM Rochester

In article <1hvjgsINNah5@hp-col.col.hp.com>, smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes:
|> fritzs@microsoft.com (Fritz Sands) writes:
|> > First, the country was not founded on Christian values -- it was deliberately
|> > set up as a secular society, in order to not have the religious wars
|> > and persecutions common in Europe.
|> 
|> Partially right; it was set up to not have a state church, but it 
|> was also largely based on what can be called 'Christian values'.

And Bhuddist values, and Deist values, and Muslim values and
Greek values, and Hebrew values, and Hindu values, and 
Confucian values, and Taoist values, and Secular Humanist 
values.

How about calling them basic HUMAN values?  That's what
they are.  Since when do christians have a lock on morals?
At least since the Crusades or the Inquisition.


Jared Dahl
Opinions expressed are mine, not my employer's.
Don't send e-mail - I won't get it.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: marco@sdf.lonestar.org (Steve Giammarco)
Subject: Re: Sexuality
Organization: Best lil' ol' Pubnix in Texas
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 13:53:26 GMT

In article <1hq25lINNnra@hp-col.col.hp.com> smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes:


>> My guess is that what is being sought is acceptance, not tolerance.  The 
>> problem is that living a gay lifestyle is not OK (my values).  That is not
>> to say that homosexuals are inherently evil, but that God did not intend us 
>> to function this way.  Nor did he intend for us to be sexually active 
>> outside of marriage, indulge in "immoral" behavior, ....  

By this, of course, you must be speaking of YOUR OWN PERSONAL GOD.  This is
not the "god" I understand and accept. 

>> These are my beliefs. I don't expect you to adopt them, nor do I expect you 
>> to accept them.  All I ask in return is that you give me the same respect in
>> return.  In my view, teaching my children views which are in direct conflict
>> with our (my wife and I) values is a violation of this respect. 

I can freely give the respect you wish for until your rights interfere with
mine. Your belief system may be in conflict with mine and therefore cause
a problem.  I was brought up in a strict Roman Catholic environment. When the
first inklings of my gayness began creeping to the surface, I was in immediate
conflict with the teachings of my church and family. This is a case of 
"my rights end where your rights begin". As a child, what was I to do?  In an
attempt to discuss my feelings, my parents simply shut me off and said I 
*don't* *have* such feelings... as if they didn't exist! Can you imagine?!?! 

I _do_ believe in the sanctity of parental authority over their children.
I only _hope_ that parents also realize that there might be things going
on within the belief systems of their children that will _clash_ with theirs.
By not recognizing this, you may subject your child to years, possibly
decades, of confusion and self-hatred.  I can't imagine that any parent
would rather see their children emotionally stunted and unhappy for a great
portion of their lives by cramming the dogma they've been taught down their
children's throat.


-- 
Steve Giammarco/5330 Peterson Lane/Dallas TX 75240
marco@sdf.lonestar.org
loveyameanit.
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:12657 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:11076 alt.politics.clinton:19371 alt.politics.bush:15236 alt.politics.homosexuality:8700
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 20:00:28 GMT
Organization: Colorado Springs IT Center
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: fajita19.cs.itc.hp.com

fritzs@microsoft.com (Fritz Sands) writes:
> First, the country was not founded on Christian values -- it was deliberately
> set up as a secular society, in order to not have the religious wars
> and persecutions common in Europe.

Partially right; it was set up to not have a state church, but it 
was also largely based on what can be called 'Christian values'.

Walter

Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Sexuality
Date: 30 Dec 92 20:29:59 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson AZ

In article <1992Dec30.005415.883@lclark.edu> snodgras@lclark.edu (Bil Snodgrass) writes:

>No....sex education was put into class because parents were doing nothing
>to teach their kids....kids were just as sexual then as now...Many social
>programs in school were instituted because parents weren't doing anything.
>(NOT ALL PARENT, but enough)

Wrong.  Sex education was put into classrooms because several very influential 
educators "thought" that parents were doing nothing to teach their kids 
about sex.  The real case was that those parents were not teaching their 
kids what those educators thought was substantial sex ed information.

They were not just a sexual as they are now.  Then (and I know, because that 
was my generation) it was out-of-the-ordinary for high school students to 
have sex.  It was quite rare for them to have multiple partners.  It was 
unheard of that one was gay.  Now, it is out-of-the-ordinary for high 
school students to be virgins.  It is normal that they have multiple 
partners.  It is no big deal if one is gay.

If you would like further information on what they were teaching as sex ed 
in public schools a couple of years ago, let me know and I will send you 
a copy of a report I wrote on the subject.

Ted
-- 
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:12261 alt.politics.clinton:19098 alt.politics.bush:14914 alt.politics.homosexuality:8444 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:10688