HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bboerner@novell.com (Brendan B. Boerner)
Subject: Re: Your own words, of course != bigot
Organization: Novell, Inc. --Austin
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 00:48:04 GMT

In article <1992Dec31.135710.867@uswmrg.mrg.uswest.com.mrg.uswest.com> greg_bradt@msmgate.mrg.uswest.com (Greg Bradt) writes:
>I have heard an suggestion that might, in principle, satisfy both camps. 
>Since marriage (at least the definition of marriage that excludes gays) is a
>religious institution, perhaps the solution is to say that one may not grant
>benefits, rights, or privledges based on marital (i.e. religious) status. 
>This would open us up to the creation of a form of "contractual" (i.e.
>legal) spousal relationship that would make one eligible for such things as
>employment benefits.  This way, one may be "married" in a religious sense, a
>legal sense, or both, at the individual's option.  After all, the whole
>issue of samesex marriages arose because we made the mistake of using a
>religious ceremony in a nonreligious context.

Nope, it wouldn't satisfy the camp opposed to leaving the gay community
alone - we ALREADY have the ability to distinguish between a
"religious" and a "legal" marriage.  For instance, you can get married
by a JP which is legally binding and never get married in a religious
ceremony.  On the flip side, I imagine you can have a religious
ceremony but never be legally married (at the weddings I've been too,
the couple signs something in front of the minister and a witness
before the ceremony is over, presumably this is to create a legal
marriage at the same time as the religious one).  However, even if a
couple does get religiously married and not legally, then the common
law of some states might kick in and they would be considered legally
married.

In any case, I would think that those opposed to granting "special"
rights to gays would still insist that legal marriage for gays is a
"special" right.

Brendan
-- 
Brendan B. Boerner    Phone: 512/346-8380    MHS: bboerner@novell
Internet: bboerner@novell.com     \  Please use either if replying
   or  Brendan_Boerner@novell.com /  by mail exterior to Novell.
From: car@access.digex.com (Mr. Blue)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Re: The "L" word
Date: 23 Dec 1992 16:11:17 GMT
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: access.digex.com

In article <105120036@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM> patm@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Pat Murphy) writes:
>>             NOT quotas. This puts me against Affirmative Action.
>
>	in the end, i do believe that a person should be hired
>	based on their ability/qualifications alone.  BUT the
>	education system today is not set up to permit trashing
>	AA programs just yet.  for example, a great number of
>	female students disdain math/science from an early age.
>	some studies suggest this is due in part to classroom
I am a white male engineer. Last Fall, I decided to explore the 
posibility of a career in education at some point in my life when
I'm done crunching bits. I went to an elementary education class that had
approximately 25 women ane 3 men, including me. The teacher was a woman.
The subject of math and science came up. When the teacher asked who had
a phobia about math and science, practically every single hand went up.
This led to an interesting discussion. Basically, the women admitted
that they are afraid of math and science and spend an inordinate amount
of time teaching literature and history instead. (A lof of these women had
already done a fair amount of student teaching and were speaking from
experience). The professor *herself* said that she avoid teaching science
and math. I was about the only person there who didnt have a problem with
the subject. 

It seems obvious to me that (and I'll get flamed here for being a sexist
racist homophobic chauvenistic bigot no doubt, but TOO BAD), that with
a majority of science-fearing women teaching our elementary, that it
contributes significatntly to the science/math fearing majority we see
in most Americans today. I know people who sound as though they are 
BRAGGING when they say they can't graph a line. This might have something
to do with the fact that we turn out 10 lawyers per engineer too..althouh
LA law and the $$$ helps too, no doubt. But the problem is, our kids are
geting socialized from day 1 that math/science = BAD. For that and other
reasons, women are especially discouraged from pursuing math and science.
From the earliest age, their role models are women who spend most of their
time talking about history and literature. 

Mr Blue

Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle)
Subject: Re: Columbus and Indians: Whats the point?
Organization: Psych Department, Indiana University
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 16:58:04 GMT

car@access.digex.com (Mr. Blue) writes:
>Why does this subject get debated so much? 

    I dunno about anybody else, but I get a kick out of debating it 
because there are so many outrageous misconceptions on both sides which 
can be put to rest by refering to archaeological remains. 

>What is the ultimate goal of those who bring it up? 

    All I care about is whether the history is vaguely accurate. I'm sure 
that there are those who wouldn't mind ignoring some of the history if 
doing so would advance their political positions, but I would say that 
there are people guilty of that on both sides of the debate.

>That we should give back the land? That we are all evil eurocentric 
>racist homophobic bigots? It's history, it happened, and it's gone on 
>since man came out of the trees. Let it be.

    Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait. That is also history, however we as 
a nation did not let it be. There really are legitimate grounds for 
disagreement over which past wrongs are worthy of being fixed; I would 
tend to agree that the conquest of the Incas and the Aztecs is probably 
a little too old to do much of anything about, but I really can't blame 
these native American advocates for trying.

>An Politically Correct types out there feel free to give your house up
>to an Indian, or an Aztec. Why dont you really say what you mean: Our
>ancestors were brutal conquerors so now we should feel guilty and give
>minorities preferential treatment over the great satan, the white 
>European Male?????  Isnt that what this is all about?

    Not in every instance. There are some cases no more than 120 years 
old in which our government has been remiss when it comes to honoring 
the treaties we signed with Indians. In some cases provisions promised 
to the Indians were stolen or withheld, and in many cases Indians have 
been railroaded through our criminal justice system. 

    If the Indians had had a few hot shot contract lawyers then maybe they 
wouldn't be in the position they are now, but IMHO they have some legitimate 
complaints over their past and present treatment. All I would ask is that 
you should forget all of the fear-mongering about giving back the land long 
enough to hear any alternate proposals. In all probability the Indians will 
never be completely satisfied, but we could do a much better job of dealing 
with their concerns if we just listen to them once in a while.

--
Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
Psychology Department               Indiana University
nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: rush?
Date: 20 Dec 92 08:02:39 GMT
Reply-To: stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce)
Organization: Handmade Designs, Salem, OR, USA

In article <92353.175026MAC135@psuvm.psu.edu> MAC135@psuvm.psu.edu writes:
>Rush Limbaugh is a f**king a**hole, who isn't smart enough to wake up and
>take a real look at the f**king world.  (flame me, it's winter here)

I'm glad you got that off your chest.  Now perhaps you can tell us why you
think that is true?
-- 
orstcs!opac!bug!stevef          I am the NRA              Steven R. Fordyce
uunet!sequent!ether!stevef         . . .  	        Deer are for Dinner
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: fritzs@microsoft.com (Fritz Sands)
Subject: Re: Showering in the Military (Re: Gays in the Military..what nobody is talking about: )
Date: 29 Dec 92 03:29:16 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation
Distribution: usa

In article <1992Dec25.175244.2266@anasazi.com> john@anasazi.com writes:
| 
| And also another example of why the conditioning that the military would
| require in order to accept gays would not work. THese sailors were
| obviously conditioned against murder (life in Leavenworth Stockade breaking
| breaks is not to be taken lightly), and yet they still committed. To me,
| this simply highlights the aversion that some young men in the military
| have to gays (no surprise to me), and how hard it would be to change
| that aversion, and how poorly units would function in the interim.

This perfectly parallels commentary against the removal of racial separation
in the military, and yet Harry Truman went ahead, and, somehow, the
military muddled through being dragged into the 20th century.

   Fritz

Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: cfthb@ux1.cts.eiu.edu (Howard Black)
Subject: Re: Sexuality
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 14:49:35 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Eastern Illinois University

In article <1i00jvINNfa6@hp-col.col.hp.com> smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes:
>cfthb@ux1.cts.eiu.edu (Howard Black) writes:
>>     The difference, of course, is that the judgements of people of your ilk
>> cause us direct harm and unhappiness.
>
>Nope.  People of my 'ilk' will find it equally, if not MORE immoral 
>to cause 'you' direct harm.  The unhappiness part, nothing I can say 
>about that.  I certainly hope my views don't cause you unhappiness; 
>I know (just look at your comments above) that your view of people 
>of my "ilk" is plenty low; people of your 'ilk' say that people of 
>my ilk make your people kill themselves.   But ultimately, I am 
>responsible for my *own* happiness, as are people of my 'ilk'; 
>as are you and people of your 'ilk'.   

    Hmmm...did we learn a new word today, Walter?  Btw, you forgot to put
quotes around it in the 6th line.

    I completely agree with your last sentence.  When people of your, er,
persuasion enact laws that grant gays identical rights to hets (not
special, just the same), I will continue my own search for happiness and
continue to allow you yours.  My search will just be on equal footing.

-- 
   ******************************************************************
     Howard Black                             cfthb@ux1.cts.eiu.edu
     Department of Chemistry                  Eastern Illinois Univ. 
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, Advanced Switching Laboratory
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 18:13:58 GMT

In article <1992Dec31.172030.17547@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> cfthb@ux1.cts.eiu.edu (Howard Black) writes:
>
>    Teachers are trained to deal with exactly this type of thing.  It is
>possible to present facts without judgement.  In fact, it would be
>interesting to respond to one of the above "but"s with "Well, that's
>interesting, Bobby; why do you think that is?".
>
>    I teach a class in medicinal chemistry, and we discuss drug abuse,
>enforcement, etc.  Those people in my class have no idea, ever, of what my
>views on drug prohibition are or my opinion of the disease concept of
>addiction.  I tell them what's out there, and that's that.
>   

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. Kids tend to
be more promiscuous and use more drugs. Please read 'Why Johnny can't
tell right from wrong' by William Kirkpatrick (recently published).
Another book is 'Moral Illiteracy' (I believe that's the title)
by William Bennett. You wanted references, well now you have them.

Start reading.

-- 
Doug Dillhoff            Any opinions expressed are strictly my own.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: cfthb@ux1.cts.eiu.edu (Howard Black)
Subject: Re: Education Regarding Alternative Family Units (Re: The Analogy Betwixt Gays & Blacks (Re: Children in Same-gender Families))
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 15:24:03 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Eastern Illinois University

In article <1hv22dINN4ie@hp-col.col.hp.com> smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes:
>philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
>>      Once again - "Practice" has nothing to do with bisexuality.
>> Bisexuality is a sexual identity just like heterosexuality is.
>> You can be a celibate bisexual.
>
>maybe what we need is a better set of terms, that differentiate 
>better between orientation and practice.  I know myself, and probobly 
>a lot of 'straight' people, are lacking in understanding in that 
>area...

    Actually, I think Phil stated it about as clearly as it can be.  In
fact, your own terms "orientation" and "practice" also are perfectly
descriptive.  
    You are het by orientation, so, if you have sex, it will probably be
with the opposite sex.  A bi is oriented toward either sex.  Acting on the
orientation is the way it's expressed, so acting in a manner contrary to
one's orientation feels unnatural because it is.
-- 
   ******************************************************************
     Howard Black                             cfthb@ux1.cts.eiu.edu
     Department of Chemistry                  Eastern Illinois Univ. 
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: bobsarv@microsoft.com (Bob Sarver)
Subject: Re: thEwIndBag against Motor Votor Bill
Date: 27 Dec 92 03:31:19 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corp.


//(krueger)
//>#1) More bureaucracy will be required

/(session)
/To register all of these voters? So? If the people decided on their own
/to register, the additional bureaucracy would still be needed.

No shit.  

Besides, since when did we decide that it was simply too much bureaucratic 
bother to register a few more people?  Are we really saying that we will
only register new voters until it becomes a administrative headache, and
then we'll stop, 'cause it just ain't worth it at that point?

The added voter registration headache will be no greater  than the
organ donor program, which is, coincidentally, also handled at driver's
license renewal.



//(krueger)
//>#2) Do you really want people registered to vote who are not going to vote

/(session)
/What difference does that make?

Yeah.  I mean, suppose they don't vote:  who cares?  It's not like their
non-vote is going to cancel out my vote or anything.

Krueger, what the hell are you afraid that they're going to do with this 
non-used voter registration card?  Jimmy car doors with it or something?



//(krueger)
//>#3) What if those people do not want to be registered

/(session)
/Why would they not want to be?


Since it's free, and doesn't take any time, why wouldn't they want to
do it?  And they are always free to decline it.  It's not like it costs
them more taxes to be registered vs. nonregistered.


Every once in awhile, reading the bbs, you come across the Golden Idiot
poster.  The ideologue who would stand behind a faltering political
philosophy (or more likely, a certain politician's views) regardless of
how stupid it made the poster look. 




Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Kicked out of a.f.d-q?  I don't think so
Date: 27 Dec 92 19:12:59 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Psych Department, Indiana University

dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>I wonder, does Susan Garvin's idea of 'free speech' mean
>that people can send e-mail to Steve Chaney's system
>administrators accusing Mr. Chaney of 'forgery', when
>in fact the 'forgery' was merely a harmless joke?  

    I can't speak for Susan, but your example definitely falls in the 
category of free speech. As a system administrator I might also be tempted 
to say that it also falls in the category of good citizenship. If I have 
any people at my site who're posting forged news articles then I want to 
know about it whether they're doing it as a joke or not. There's this 
little issue called "network security" which some of us take pretty 
seriously... remember, Robert Morris's internet worm started as a 
"harmless joke".

--
Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
Psychology Department               Indiana University
nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
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 06:04:22 GMT

In article <1htjn0INNb3u@hp-col.col.hp.com> smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes:
>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...
>
>So what does this mean?  What are your feelings/views about people who 
>think homosexuality is wrong, but think tolerance should be the key? 
>Would you stay friends with someone who expressed that view?  
>
>Walter
>
If you can think that homosexuality is wrong, and remain unbiased
against homosexuals, then you are truly a rare human being. I don't know 
of anyone capable of being totally objective about such things. 

Walter, I think you are stupid. Will you be my friend?

Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: greg_bradt@msmgate.mrg.uswest.com (Greg Bradt)
Subject: Rush and Arrogance
XUserAgent: Nuntius v1.1b3
Organization: US West Marketing Resources
NntpPostingHost: greg_bradt.mrg.uswest.com
Date: 21 Dec 92 21:29:59 GMT

In article <1992Dec19.220820.26410@netcom.com> John Switzer, jrs@netcom.com
writes in "Summary Mon 12/14/92":

>Arrogance combined with power is one of the most disgusting of
>combinations. Rush admits that he has a "tough time dealing with
>arrogance," and he says "I cannot stomach pure undiluted,
>concentrated, unadulterated pure arrogance  it rubs me raw far
>more than any other human trait."
>
You have to love the irony of a statement like that.

Let's just hope that Rush doesn't acquire any =real= power.  He won't be
able to live with himself.

Greg Bradt aka ()The Lensman()

greg_bradt@msmgate.mrg.uswest.com | "Freedom means sometimes
Genie: G.BRADT                    |   having to put up with
Compuserve: 70206,172             |   things that really
BBS: (303)290 9243                |   piss you off".
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:12648 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:11067 alt.politics.clinton:19362 alt.politics.bush:15228 alt.politics.homosexuality:8693
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 19:09:51 GMT
Organization: Colorado Springs IT Center
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: fajita19.cs.itc.hp.com

cfthb@ux1.cts.eiu.edu (Howard Black) writes:
> 
>     Because sexuality is not a judgement call, while morality is.  There is
> no reason to intermingle the two.

Obviously you have done as little to understand or respect others' 
views on this as people complain straights have about gay issues. 
You cannot seperate morality and sex in the minds of a lot of 
people.  

Walter

Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Subject: Re: Showering in the Military (Re: Gays in the Military..what nobody is talking about: )
Reply-To: john@anasazi.com
Organization: Anasazi, Inc.  Phoenix, Arizona USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 04:24:19 GMT

Keywords: 

In article <1992Dec29.034601.28832@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov> fogarty@sir-c.jpl.nasa.gov (Tim Fogarty) writes:
]In article <1992Dec29.004539.5683@anasazi.com>, john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore) writes:
]
]Since there is no RIGHT to participate in the military, why was it important
]to integrate blacks into the military in the 50s and not important to 
]integrate gays into the military in the 90s ?

Because blacks constitute a significant segment of the population;
because blackness is not a behavioral trait.
]
]And how many times must it be said ?  There are ALREADY 10s or 100s of 
]thousands of gays in the military.  Changing the rules so that these soldiers 
]wont have to worry about being kicked out will not adversely affect military
]unit cohesion.  Fear is not what is keeping these soldiers in line.  A good
]soldier is a good soldier, whether he/she is gay or straight.

And how many times must it be said that having open gays in the military
leads to a number of problems that having closet gays does not. I will
not repeat these here.... it has been beaten to death in this thread already.
]
]And if you have every been in a public shower, odds are that you have taken
]a shower with a homosexual.  Would it have really made any difference if
]you knew that that other person was a homosexual ?

I believe that for many service people the answer to that is yes.

-- 
John Moore NJ7E, 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253  (602-951-9326)
john@anasazi.com ncar!noao!asuvax!anasaz!john anasaz!john@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
 - - Support ALL of the bill of rights, INCLUDING the 2nd amendment! - -
 - - It is not enough to be right. One must also be effective! - -
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh