HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Sexuality
Date: 10 Jan 93 17:48:37 GMT
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park

In article <C0n41G.JE4@unix.amherst.edu> jmfuchs@unix.amherst.edu (jesse fuchs) writes:
>Gregory O. Harp (harp@netcom.com) wrote:
>> jmfuchs@unix.amherst.edu (jesse fuchs) writes:
>> 
>> >	BTW, ever see a "Kill a Queer For Christ" bumper sticker? They're
>> >very popular down in the South...my ex-girlfriend, who's from Alabama, got me



	Is this for real?  

	I mean, are these "Kill a queer for Jesus" bumper stickers 
	anythingbut a joke, or do people take them seriously?

	Maybe it's time to dig out my "Why wait for heaven?" sticker
	with the dead priest nailed to the hood of a car sticker.


-- 
      Blaming "society" for your problems is like blaming clouds for rain.
 ---  boycott == coercion == censorship == closed mindedness == cowardice  ---
	      "Psalms 23:1  The LORD is my shepherd; I shall not want."  
		Shepherds are for sheep.   -----      Pain teaches.
From: laurel.schippers@hal9k.ann-arbor.mi.us (Laurel Schippers)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: RE: SEXUALITY
Date: 4 Jan 93 10:29:00 GMT
Reply-To: laurel.schippers@hal9k.ann-arbor.mi.us (Laurel Schippers)
Organization: HAL 9000 BBS, W-NET HQ, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA

-------------
Date: 01-04-93 (06:40)              Number: 3369 of 3381
  To: ALL                           Refer#: NONE
From: PHIL LAFORNARA                  Read: (N/A)
Subj: Re: Sexuality                 Status: PUBLIC MESSAGE
Conf: RUSH_LIMBAUGH (97)         Read Type: GENERAL (+)
<quotation>
>Because they have committed themselves to their spouses.  (I didn't
spell that
>out in the original statement, I should have)
->   If the spouses in question have not committed to monogamy, is
-> it still immoral?
---------------

No. That's called 'open marriage.'

Some people find sex inherently private. Some do not. I might very well
consider my golf score nobody's business, because I don't like people
to know my golf score. I might not care if people know that I date
women, because I don't consider that private. Respecting others'
privacy is the question. The way some people brag, you get the
strong impression they don't consider sex private.
                                                                       
----
+------------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| 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,alt.sex,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org (Mike A. McAngus)
Subject: Re: Colorado Amendment2 Query
Organization: Homebrew Virtual Reality Labs
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Wed, 06 Jan 1993 04:10:08 GMT

Chris Fulmer (chrisf@brtph316.NoSubdomain.NoDomain) wrote:
: In article <1993Jan4.152505.22773@uswmrg.mrg.uswest.com.mrg.uswest.com>, greg
_bradt@msmgate.mrg.uswest.com (Greg Bradt aka The Lensman) writes:
: |>  Article 2, of the Colorado Constitution is amended by the addition of
: |>  Sec. 30, which shall state as follows:
: |>
: |>  NO PROTECTED STATUS BASED ON HOMOSEXUAL, LESBIAN OR BISEXUAL
: |>  ORIENTATION.  Neither the State of Colorado, through any of its
: |>  branches or departments, nor any of its agencies, political
: |>  subdivisions, municipalities or school districts, shall enact, adopt
: |>  or enforce any statute, regulation, ordinance or policy whereby
: |>  homosexual, lesbian, or bisexual orientation, conduct, practices or
: |>  relationships shall constitute or otherwise be the basis of, or
: |>  entitle any person or class of persons to have or claim any minority
: |>  status, quota preferences, protected status or claim or
: |>  discrimination.  This section of the Constitution shall be in all
: |>  respects selfexecuting.
: |>
: |> As you can see, the amendment was cleverly phrased to imply that it preven
ts
: |> 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.
:                                                         ^^
: Greg -- I think that you might be misreading that....  Here's how I read it..
.
:
: Colorado...shall [not] adopt any statute...whereby homosexual orientation...s
hall
: be the basis of...discrimination.

But this should not need to be said.  Discrimination in the law is
unconstitutional.

:
: The part that I've highlighted with the ^^'s should be an "or," not an "of".
 The
: way you're reading it, it implies that the amendment does not allow a homosex
ual
: to file a claim that says s/he's been discriminated against, which is definat
ely
: not what it says.

I thought the original "or" in the text posted was a typo, otherwise that line
makes not sense:  "...or entitle any person or class of persons to have or 
claim ... protected status or claim or discrimination."

:
: 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."
:

Just don't claim that you were discriminated against.
-- 
Mike McAngus                    |You are a fluke of the Universe.  You have no 
mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org            |right to be here, and whether you can hear it
The Truth is still the Truth    |or not the Universe is laughing behind your 
Even if you choose to ignore it.|back.  -- National Lampoon, Deteriorata
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: mykes@shell.portal.com (mike myke schwartz)
Subject: Re: Taxing medical benefits ... NOT
Organization: Portal Communications Company
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL7]
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 18:22:46 GMT

paul@hsh.com wrote:
: 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? 
: 

OK, riddle me this, batman:  Why did a luxury tax on expensive cars and boats
cause those industries to lose significant business and layoff workers?
People DO actually pay higher prices for product to support taxes, right?

: ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ 
: 
: Paul Havemann   Internet: paul@hsh.com
From: jhb@calmasd.prime.com (Jim Bishop)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Sexuality
Date: 12 Jan 93 02:17:03 GMT
Organization: -

In article <1irsolINN7pr@cronkite.Central.Sun.COM>, 
dbernard@clesun.Central.Sun.COM (Dave Bernard) writes:

[Dave, please trim your lines to 80 characters]

> Jim Bishop writes:
> 
>>>I've read that rates as a percentage of population for teen
>>>pregnancies are pretty much the same.  
> 
> 	Rates ARE a percentage of population... that's what the word "rate"
> 	means.  When the US government says the rate of teen and unwed
> 	pregnancies is up, it does not mean the number, it means the rate
> 	per population.

So Dave, where are the stats you quoted then?  Several others have
asked for them too.

>>> If VD rates
>>> are lower,  why is the number of AIDS victims 
>>> at an all time high, when we knew about AIDS 10 years ago?
>>
>> Your final comment is one that makes the rest of your argument totally
>> pointless.  The only protection against AIDS is education.  Part of
>> AIDS education has to include sex education.  
> 
> 	Your education comment is a slogan, not a thought-out point.  

You slogan comment is a slogan and not a well thought-out point. 
Right now other than education about how AIDS is contracted can you
name another way to protect yourself from HIV infection?  

>       The fact is,
> 	the public has known the cause and method of spreading of AIDS for the 
> 	last 8 to 10 years.  The gay community has been acutely aware of it at least
> 	as long.  Media spots, brochures, events, school-ed, you name it, have
> 	been rampant.  If education were the "only protection," and if the average
> 	incubation period for AIDS is around 5 years, we should by now be seeing the
> 	number of new AIDS cases decline by quite a bit.  I'd like to see any evidence
> 	that education alone is working... why not phone the CDC in Atlanta?  And
> 	even if things would be worse without education campaigns, education
> 	campaigns alone are not stopping things.

Overall, the number of new cases isn't increasing nearly as rapidly as
was in the early 80's.  There has yet to be a decrease in the number
of new cases.  Education (about how to protect against HIV infection)
is the cause of the decrease.  If you disagree, then what is it you
know that no one else does?

You seem to want to argue that education about AIDS is ineffective. 
You say education alone isn't working.  What do you mean by this? 
I'll agree that a vacine would be great too, but it isn't likely
that there will be one any time soon.   Perhaps education isn't
perfect, but it's the only thing we've got right now.

Jim
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:13037 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:11547 alt.politics.clinton:19624 alt.politics.bush:15549
From: popec@unkaphaed.gbdata.com (William C. Barwell)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,a
Subject: Re: Sexuality
Date: Tue, 05 Jan 93 06:20:17 GMT
Organization: Unka Phaed's UUCP Thingy, Houston, TX

jackies@fc.hp.com (Jackie Sheddy X6958) writes:

> Walter Smith (smithw@col.hp.com) wrote:
> : 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 christia
> : > towards homosexuals.
> : 
> : Not worthy of life?  Get a grip.  If that were the case, you wouldn't be ab
> : to openly post that you are gay and live to tell about it.  That is just pl
> : *absurd*.  There's no doubt that homosexuality is looked down upon, but 
> : 'not worthy of life'?? 
> : 
> : Walter
> 
> 	Obviously  Walter has not heard of the Rev.  Pete  Peters.  This
> 	"person"  is in the form of the  Minister  of the  LaPorte,  CO,
> 	Church of  Christ.  A year or so ago, he  published  a  pamphlet
> 	entitled   _The_Bible_Advocates_Death_to_Homosexuals_.  If   you
> 	want a copy,  Walter, I can  provide you with one.  Then tell us
> 	what you told Robert.
> 
> 	Yes,  Walter,  there are those  people out there that think that
> 	homosexuals are NOT worthy of life.
> 
> --
> Regards,
> 
> Jackie
> jackies@hpxxx.fc.hp.com
> Hate is NOT a Family Value!!
> 


Down here in Houston, texas, Gay bashing has become a big problem in the 
last few years as anti-gay rhetoric has been heating up. Numerous 'good 
xian kids' have been driving miles to the gay bar areas of Houston to 
attack gays.  One gay, Paul Brousard was killed by suck a gang weilding 
sticks with nails protruding from them.  This caused an uproaor that for 
the very first time caused the Houston police Department to actually set 
decoy cops out in these areas posing as gays.  These cops were utterly 
surprised at the quantity and viciousness of attacks perpetrated on them 
in a very short period of time.   Gay bashing has been growing in 
viciousness and frequency all over the nation in the last 3 0r 4 years.
Numerous very ugly murders have taken place.  Horrifying tales of cruelty 
and intolerance, a veritable nationwide pogrom against gays, fed by the 
loose talk from religous and ultraconservative idiots.
  
Time to wake up to this reality and to actually think about the evil that 
the loose talk from the far right and the religous right is actually 
accomplishing.


After WWII, many Germans said about the Jews and the Concentration Camps, 
"We did not know about this".  Well, I have pointed out here we do have a 
problem.  Anybody reading this has no good claim for later that they did 
not have any hints this stuff was going on, way back when.
Time to start seeing what is actually being done to gays in this country, 
and how this is being stirred up.

Pope Charles      Subgenius Pope Of Houston

--
popec@unkaphaed.gbdata.com (William C. Barwell)
Unka Phaed's UUCP Thingy, Houston, TX, (713) 481-3763
1200/2400/9600/14400 v.32bis/v.42bis
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle)
Subject: Re: Chelsea's school ...
Organization: Psych Department, Indiana University
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 17:49:55 GMT

mike@execu.execu.com (Mike McCants) writes:
>Nathan Engle writes:
>>    Would you then agree that the primary goal of Bush's school choice 
>>plan is the wholesale dismantlement of the public education system? 

>1.  Why say "primary goal"?  Bush seeks "revenge"?  The NEA must be
>"punished"?  

    I thought carefully before choosing the term "primary goal", and I 
still think that it's appropriate, not because Bush wants revenge or 
wants to emasculate the NEA, but rather because the first assumption 
necessary to advocate "School Choice" as I've heard described by Bush 
is that the current public school system is doing such an abysmal job 
that the government should take money that was earmarked for public 
schools and redirect it into the hands of people who want out. Following 
on that first assumption is the implication that once the public schools 
are on the ropes they will somehow magically emerge from the ashes of 
their former selves as new and improved "wonderschools". (i.e.- private 
schools could use the money to improve their curricula, but the public 
ones get to try it with reduced funding).

>One would hope that such a plan would be adopted because
>it achieves a greater good for a larger number of people at lower
>total cost.  The "poor" and "underclass" will be always with us?
>Will the plight of that "minority" really be much worse?

    I dunno. Ask a few of them and see what they think.

>2.  If it were "Bush's plan", there wouldn't be much point in talking
>about it, would there?

    If you would like to suggest a different sponsor to whom I should 
attribute the idea of school choice I'm all ears. I call it Bush's plan 
because Bush is the first president I can recall who raised it as a 
proposal.

>3.  Why use the word "wholesale"?

    Well, if you don't like that word, then how about "systemic"? 

>Let's try:

>"Would you agree that one possible outcome of trying a "school
>voucher" plan experimentally might be that 20 years from now
>there might be no publicly owned and operated schools in the US?"

>Yes, that's one possible outcome.  I'm not going to argue that's
>it's an absolutely undesirable outcome.  A lot of choices will
>be made in the next 20 years.

--
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: aap@wam.umd.edu (Alberto Adolfo Pinkas)
Subject: Re: Lifestyle Choices (was  Re: Sexuality)
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 04:38:40 GMT

In article <4JAN199322171586@zeus.tamu.edu> rlc1028@zeus.tamu.edu (Gadson Sandor) writes:
>In article <1993Jan4.211232.15876@wam.umd.edu>, aap@wam.umd.edu (Alberto Adolfo Pinkas) writes...
>| 
>|It would be interesting to point out that we can find incest in *every*
>|mammalian species other than human biengs.
>|And, also, that there is no age of consent among all
>|other mammalian species.
>
>	Which would only serve to prove the point that there is no
>correlation between what is natural (unnatural) and what is morally
>right (wrong).
>
>	Thanks Al.
>

You are welcome.
I was pointing out that men, as part of nature can only do natural things.
After that, society considers some of those natural things as morally right
and some those natural things as morally wrong.
So, we cannot say that just because it is natural homosexuality is right,
nor we can say that homosexuality is wrong because it is unnatural.



>     ____                _
>    /    )               /          
>   /    /               /       
>  (____/   ___     ___ /   ___,    ___   ,___ 
>__    /   ____)   /   /   (__     /   )  /   )
> /   /   /   /   /   /       )   /   /  /   /     
>(___/   (___(_  (___(_  (___/   (___/  /   (__    

PD: Are you hungarian?


                             |~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|
               |\/\/\/|      |    Alberto A. Pinkas (aka AAP)     |
               |      |      |      insultos y comentarios        |                            |      |      |         a aap@wam.umd.edu          |
               | (o)(o)      |         o ap31@umail.umd.edu       | 
               C      _)     |   Un hungaro nacido en el exilio   |
                | ,___|   <==|____________________________________|
                |   / 
               /____\            " Don't have a cow man. "
              / _____\ 






Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: stamber@rainbow.ecn.purdue.edu (Kevin L. Stamber)
Subject: Re: Chelsea's school ...
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 18:10:09 GMT

In article <1993Jan8.041330.25334@afit.af.mil>, wbralick@afit.af.mil (Will Bralick) writes:

> 
> 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.  
> 
> Ah, yes.  We want everybody (except the rich and powerful) to have the 
> same abysmal education.  Thus everybody (except the rich and powerful) 
> will be equally well (?) educated.  
> 
     Clinton's concept is a unique one:  Take all of the public schools,
some of them good, some of them bad, and give access to all.  This will
in theory bring the better schools down and pull the worse schools up,
reaching a point of mediocrity and equality for all schools -- after all,
these are public schools; no one should be better than another.

     Clinton's belief is that the competition will make the lower schools
push to become better.  A possible result is that they may go out of 
business altogether.  This is fairly close to being a question of 
the Law of Conservation of Matter and Energy:  until such time as we
are able to improve the QUALITY of the education, not by competition
but by developing new methods of interesting students to WANT to learn
at their current schools who may not have beeen interested before,
(please excuse poor use of the language in this past sentence -- part
of the educational success story, I suppose) we are left with only so
much energy, or motivation.  By introducing choice without introducing
interest in education at all levels -- students, teachers, parents,
administration -- we are left with dispersing the sum total of all interest,
of energy, of motivation equally among all schools, thus pulling some
down, and pulling others up.

     This isn't success, it's mediocrity.  I've never known America to
settle for that.  I hope that they won't now.

> 
> Policies are, after all, more important than people, eh?
> 
        As Andre Agassi says in his camera commercial:
                                       "Image is everything."
> 
> Regards,
> 
> -- 
> 
> Will Bralick			          Speaking _only_ for myself.
> 
> Standard disclaimers apply.            Void where prohibitted by law.

Kevin Stamber
Purdue University
COWHER POWER!
From: kens@psc.lsa.umich.edu (Ken Small)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Borgy Boy's squeals
Date: 12 Jan 1993 23:36:17 GMT
Organization: University of Michigan - ITD Consulting and Support
NNTP-Posting-Host: pareto.psc.lsa.umich.edu
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]

Paul S Galvanek (psg+@pitt.edu) wrote:
: In fact I'll make a little prediction, just for the fun of it...

: I say that three years from now, after Bill Clinton and Congress have tried 
: to use the force of law to regulate speech, demand acceptance of their values
: and generally ignored the will of the majority,  I say that the LA riots will
: pale in comparison to the fighting you'll see in the streets of major cities.  
Last time I checked most people were for tolerance of homosexuals and
were pro-choice (I think 2/3 of the country is pro-choice).  How do
you figure that the Moral Majority is a majority at all?

--
Ken Small           kens@umich.edu
"I used to be disgusted; now I try to be amused."
Consulting and Support Services, University of Michigan
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: briand@anasazi.com (Brian Douglass)
Subject: Re: Showering in the Military (Re: Gays in the Military..what nobody is talking about: )
Organization: Anasazi Inc Phx Az USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 06:35:08 GMT

In article <YOUNG.93Jan1212603@ssdd475a.erim.org> young@ssdd475a.erim.org (Peter Young) writes:
>In all these anecdotes about homosexual rape in the military, what
>most people seem to be ignoring is that most of the perpetrators do
>not consider themselves to be gay.  Just as in prison the sexual
>agressors were heterosexual, exclusively, before incarceration, and
>are exclusively so after release, soldiers in stressful situations
>behave oddly.  Most of them would cite lack of any other interpersonal
>outlet for their sexual urges as the reason for their behavior.

I think you bring up a most interesting possible justification for the
military making sodomy and oral copulation a crime, regardless of what sex
it is with.  Not being a law historian, I don't know if your idea of
convenient target for sexual aggression does have any bearing on military
sex law, but it would interesting to know.

[deleted stuff]
>--
>Peter Young
>young@erim.org


-- 
"The best government of all is that government which governs the least."
	Jefferson
Brian Douglass		briand@anasazi.com 	602-870-3330 X657
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:13295 talk.abortion:54582