HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
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: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 00:23:50 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? 

U.S. News & World Report.

>For your information ALL branches of
>the service have sexual conduct rules for ALL service members which are 
>enforceable on or off base. 

Thank you very much.  Since I did not have the article in hand, I felt
obligated NOT to overstate a claim and apply this ALL services, hence my
caveat of "in some services."  And though I believe the subject of the
article was in the Navy and prosecuted for consential sodomy, I could not
remember precisely and so again did not overstate the claim.

>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.  

To paraphase what many have proclaimed here: "the military no business in the 
private lives (i.e. sexual) of its personnel, and so whether someone is gay or 
not should be irrelevant."  Not my words, not my thoughts.  But looking at
things from their side for a moment, I must ask, if such assertion is true, 
mustn't the military do away with all of its rules regarding consential sex?  
And obviously I'm not talking about criminal acts.

You seem to indicate Clinton will make such consential rules stricter.
Well, since sodomy and oral copulation would still be banned, wouldn't this
be discriminatory towards the gay members?  After all, there's not much
left, except maybe hand-jobs. 8-).  That may offend some, which is not my
intent (maybe a little levity).  However, if it is repealed for gays, must not
it also be repealed for hetrosexuals?

Just some points of ponder.

>
>Stan Knight 
>|Facts is facts unless you make up your own| 


Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush
From: greg_bradt@msmgate.mrg.uswest.com (Greg Bradt)
Subject: Re: Your own words, of course != bigot
XXXDate: Thu, 31 Dec 92 18:55:51 GMT
XUserAgent: Nuntius v1.1.1d16
XXXMessageID: <A7689047DF060614@greg_bradt.mrg.uswest.com>
Organization: US West Marketing Resources
NntpPostingHost: greg_bradt.mrg.uswest.com
Date: 31 Dec 92 18:57:10 GMT

In article <C03KAA.2zG@NeoSoft.com> Jim Shirreffs, jpsb@NeoSoft.com writes:
> We as a soceity *need* axioms to base our behavior on. I use J/C morality,
> I'm sure you also have a ethical standard, proably not to different from
> mine. 

You are, indeed, zeroing in on the source of the problem.   Many people,
myself included, have a great deal of trouble accepting the whole of
JudeoChristian morality as "axiomatic."

> Lensman argues that behavior should be based on law, I argue that
> law should be based on the shared values of those ruled by the laws. 

I'd state that first part a bit more loosely... that behavior must =conform=
to laws.  Any behavior that does not impact on others should be outside of
the law's juristiction.

I'd also agree that laws should be based on =some= shared values,
specifically those of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.  It is
difficult to go beyond those basic values without damaging them.

> I also argue that those shared values should be pasted on to future
> generations. What you are asking me to do is to place on the same moral
> plan any two people that declar themselves a couple as I would a married
> heterosexual couple. I have a problem with that.

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.

Greg Bradt aka ()The Lensman()

greg_bradt@msmgate.mrg.uswest.com | 
Genie: G.BRADT                    |   having to put up with
Compuserve: 70206,172             |   things that really
BBS: (303)290 9243                |   piss you off.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: dillhoff@aslws01.asl.dl.nec.com (Doug Dillhoff)
Subject: Re: Sexuality
Organization: NEC America, Inc Irving TX
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 19:45:45 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.
>

I have read the evidence that suggests otherwise and it is not at all
conclusive.
-- 
Doug Dillhoff            Any opinions expressed are strictly my own.
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:12061 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:10551
From: shapiro@cfsctc.enet.dec.com (Steve Shapiro)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Lush Rambo (WKRP lampoon)
Date: 21 Dec 92 14:16:00 GMT
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation - Marlboro, MA
Organisation: SKS Computer Consulting, Inc.


In article <BzF8r0.MD6@cda.mrs.umn.edu>, luhmanjp@nxsci173a.mrs.umn.edu (Joe
Luhman) writes...

>Did anyone happen to catch this weeks episode of the new WKRP in Cincinnati?

Actually, you saw a rerun as I recall seeing this particular episode a few
months ago.

Secondly, it was FLASH Rambo.

>I don't normally watch the show, but as I was flipping through the channels,
>I noticed that they were lampooning Rush on the show.  I'm a Rush fan,
>but the lampoon was hilarious!!  I was literally rolling on the floor!
>They didn't really present him as a monster or anything like that, so I 
>found it amusing.  

I liked it a lot also. It also made a good point with respect to freedom of
speech and equal time. 

While I felt that they made 'Flash' to be even more right of Rush (if such a
thing is possible), I believe that they were trying to exemplify the extremes
on both sides (left and right). 

I was particularly impressed as to the solution that this episodes writers came
up with and believe that it exemplified the issue of tolerance for both sides
of an issue.

Regards,
Steve.

/*******************************************************************
* Steve Shapiro                 * All views and opinions expressed *
* SKS Computer Consulting, Inc. * are my own and are offered as-is *
********************************************************************
* Steve.Shapiro@f440.n101.z1.fidonet.org  BBS: (508) 664-6354 N81  *
*******************************************************************/
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:12082 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:10571 alt.politics.clinton:19000 alt.politics.bush:14833 alt.politics.homosexuality:8288
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Education Regarding Alternative Family Units (Re: The Analogy Betwixt Gays & Blacks (Re: Children in Same-gender Families))
Date: 21 Dec 92 21:03:04 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: sgi
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com

In article <1992Dec19.215902.18440@galileo.physics.arizona.edu>, krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
|> In article <16DEC199223251060@zeus.tamu.edu> rlc1028@zeus.tamu.edu writes:
|> 
|> >|So should families where one parent is a crossdresser be shown? 
|> >|Or both are?  Does a distinction need to be made between 2-male families 
|> >|and households where there is a father and a male (non-gay relation) 
|> >|sharing the house (to share expenses) where they sleep in *different* 
|> >|rooms?  Do we need to show families where daddy and the family dog are 
|> >|very close?  Do we need to show families where mommy and daddy are 
|> >|swingers, and occasionally have someone else's mommy/daddy sleep over 
|> >|instead of the usual mommy/daddy?  How about when daddy and daddy are 
|> >|swingers, and swap daddies now and then?  I realize I'm going to an 
|> >|absurd length here, but do you see the point?  
|> >
|> >    Why do you feel it necessary to portray families as based on
|> >the specific sexual practises?  Isn't it sufficient simply to show families
|> >as based on gender differences (or similarities) alone?  In other words,
|> >showing a family with two male parents doesn't even bring into question
|> >the activities in the bedroom.  And I think that's where alternative
|> >family education in schools should end.
|> 
|> It does exactly bring into question the activities in the bedroom, because 
|> sexual preference is a direct correlation with same-sex parents.  Please, 
|> show me 3 same-sex couples who are heterosexual.

Pardon me?    You're claiming that in the mind of the average first grader,
"sexual preference is a direct correlation with same-sex parents"

I think that's complete nonsense.    I don't think first graders have the
slightest idea about sexual preference.   In fact, Mr Smith's original
complaint seemed to be that we were giving them one.

|> 
|> Can you say "touche?"
|> 

Touche.

jon.
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:12611 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:11030 alt.politics.clinton:19333 alt.politics.bush:15190 alt.politics.homosexuality:8667
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 15:12:35 GMT
Organization: Colorado Springs IT Center
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: fajita19.cs.itc.hp.com

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

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: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 15:28:04 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Eastern Illinois University

In article <1hv2l3INN4m8@hp-col.col.hp.com> smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes:
>
>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 

    Sounds like this is the big question for you.  Why does it have to be
judged?  Kids are taught that some animals pair off for life, some are
completely solitary, and some have sex with multiple partners.  In my
experience, these facts were presented as such with no value judgements
attached.  Homosexuality, bisexuality, and heterosexuality can easily be
taught in the exact same way.

>respected and treated equally, period?  Then, as kids confront 

    Sounds great, except that many adults can't restrain themselves from
adding their judgement calls to such "education".

>those who are different from them in the future, they have that 
>base to fall back on?  

-- 
   ******************************************************************
     Howard Black                             cfthb@ux1.cts.eiu.edu
     Department of Chemistry                  Eastern Illinois Univ. 
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:12100 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:10582 alt.politics.clinton:19013 alt.politics.bush:14842 alt.politics.homosexuality:8311
From: tip@lead.aichem.arizona.edu (Tom Perigrin)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Education Regarding Alternative Family Units (Re: The Analogy Betwixt Gays & Blacks (Re: Children in Same-gender Families))
Date: 21 Dec 92 22:54:46 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Arizona UNIX Users Group

In article <1992Dec19.215902.18440@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
>
>It does exactly bring into question the activities in the bedroom, because 
>sexual preference is a direct correlation with same-sex parents.  Please, 
>show me 3 same-sex couples who are heterosexual.
>
>Can you say "touche?"

No,  but I can say "you missed again".

An out of work freind of mine moved in with his brother, who was undergoing
a divorce.  The father thought that having a full time live in childcare
provider would help him maintain custody.  The courts agreed (mom
was pretty distastefull).   This has worked out so well that they
are still being a two male parent family after 2 years.  Unless my friend
has changed a WHOLE lot in the last 2 years,  there isn't any bedroom
activity between him and his brother.

I know of a similar couple of divorced sisters who were a same sex couple 
raising each others kids.  I dated one, and can attest that she had 
heterosexual leanings!

I have two maiden aunts, and they raised my uncle's son after he was killed
in WWII.

I guess Ted can't imagine two guys living under the same roof and not
rogering each other.... makes you wonder what kinda mind Ted has.
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:12639 alt.politics.clinton:19355
From: aberson@enh.nist.gov
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: RE: Sexuality
Date: 30 Dec 92 00:26:23 GMT
Followup-To: alt.rush-limbaugh
Organization: NIST

In a previous article, smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith) wrote:
>wgb3@pyuxf.uucp (25336-buoni) writes:
> 
>> 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 would be fully willing to respect your viewpoint if you were in any way
willing to respect mine.  As a taxpaying citizen who may or may not have
children to send to school, I find that teaching my children views which
are in direct conflict with my values a violation of respect for me.
When you teach me how my values can be respected, I will be sure to follow
your great example.  Until that time, I don't believe you have any say in
the matter.  When any mention of heterosexuality is removed from schooling
of children, I will be able to fully agree that any mention of homosexuality
and bisexuality can be deleted also.  I don't want my children to be 
indoctrinated into a belief system which is in such conflict with my values.

Your children are just as likely to be homo/bisexual as anybody else's.
Your attempts to control their sexuality will come to nothing in the end.
Your children will be who they are whether you like it or not.  Simply
stated, you are just advocating making your lesbigay child's adolescence
and adjustment in society that much more difficult by insisting that they
should be indoctrinated into a homogeneous heterosexual society whether
they are heterosexual or not.

Respect breeds respect...

Sim Aberson   Ft. Lauderdale, FL   aberson%3328.span@sdsc.edu
"Home is where your roof landed" - t-shirt seen in Miami
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: dillhoff@aslws01.asl.dl.nec.com (Doug Dillhoff)
Subject: Re: Sexuality
Organization: NEC America, Inc Irving TX
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 19:43:35 GMT

In article <1992Dec30.192655.5920@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> cfthb@ux1.cts.eiu.edu (Howard Black) 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
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>children.
>
>    You shouldn't state opinions as if they were facts.  You cannot support
>this, tons of het and gay folks disagree = opinion.

I didn't say they were opinions and not facts, you did. I have read
articles that support what I wrote.

-- 
Doug Dillhoff            Any opinions expressed are strictly my own.
From: dbernard@clesun.Central.Sun.COM (Dave Bernard)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Columbus vs Indians (was Re: PC lives)
Date: 29 Dec 1992 17:12:53 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems
Distribution: world
Reply-To: dbernard@clesun.Central.Sun.COM
NNTP-Posting-Host: clesun.central.sun.com

Bill ANderson writes:

: 
>: Actually, the reports I've read indicate that the missionairies were very
>: concerned with the Indians, at least those who converted and were under
>: their charge.  There are constant reports of their complaints to the king
>: regarding ill-treatment of Indians by the civil authorities & armies.  Like
>: missionaries- medical, spritual, teaching- everywhere, they seem to have taken
>: the welfare of their people very seriously.
>: 
>: 	Dave

>Some of them did.  Most of our knowledge of Spanish attrocities in
>the new world comes from priests wh protested against it; this
>attitude certainly wasn't universal among the clergy, however.
>Many of them used Indians as slave labor at their missions, and
m


Missions were established to spread the religion and the culture, and to protect
converts.  In effect, they were villages, often fortified.  Indians who exercised
their freedom of choice to convert were given the opportunity of raising crops.
Is this slave labor?  Then working in a corporation today to earn a living is
slave labor, by the same token.  What would be the purpose of slave labor if it
was to make the slaves self-sufficient, not to make the owners- the missionaries-
rich and powerful?  As for those who chose not to convert, and to live apart, how
could missions persecute them?  Especially since those living apart frequently
exercised their own free will to burn down the missions?

	Dave

Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: cdm@pmafire.inel.gov (Dale Cook)
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 92 20:50:06 GMT
Organization: WINCO
Subject: Re: Flash! Environmentalists switch off Earth's volcanoes (was: The Fr
Summary: 
Followup-To: 
Distribution: usa
Organization: WINCO
Keywords: 

In article <1992Dec19.215032.18325@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
>In article <1992Dec17.220703.410@pmafire.inel.gov> cdm@pmafire.inel.gov (Dale Cook) writes:
>
>>Nobody in science seriously doubts that global warming is happening.
>
>Here we have it folks.  The intelligent poster claims that NOBODY seriously 
>doubts that global warming is happening.  Since I'm sure that this poster 
>claims to have read ALL the scientific journal articles on the topic, he must 
>believe that all of the completely credible scientists who have written that 
>global warming is NOT occuring (not to mention the thousands who believe that 
>humans have nothing to do with it) are lying??? 

Given the fact that it is an observed phenomemon, it's pretty hard to 
dispute.  From what I've read, the debate centers around the following
questions (primarily):

- Is the observed trend actually an emerging long-term trend?  Or, is
  it a temporary blip?

- Given the current recent trend, what will the magnitude be of any
  future warming?

- What will be the effects (if any) be on climate and weather?

- Is the observed trend caused by man?

>
>God!  The smugness of the sky-is-falling crowd never fails to amaze me.
>

And just what did you read in my post that led you to believe I'm a 
member of the "sky-is-falling crowd"?   Did you read my whole post, or
did you just pick on this particular sentence (which, I'll grant, was
overstated)?

Get off your reactionary high horse.  It's easy enough to dispute my
statement without resorting to name calling.  All you need is one
counterexample.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
...Dale Cook    "I don't much care how a man prays -- there's plenty of
                 room in hell for all of us."  --- "Mad Jack" Duncan
The opinions are mine only (i.e., they are NOT my employer's)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 22:59:50 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation
Distribution: usa

In article <1992Dec29.004539.5683@anasazi.com> john@anasazi.com writes:
| 
| The argument (actually, the part of it germain to your comment) is
| that integrating gays into the military would adversely affect military
| unit cohesion, and that coercion is not enough to fix that;

First, why *isn't* coercion enough?

Second -- the same arguement was used in opposition to integrating blacks
into the military, and is now used in opposition to fully integrating
women into the military.  It could be used in opposition to fully
integrating people from different ethnic groups (say, people of Greek
and Turkish descent), or from different religions.

Purportedly, the military trains young men and women to be responsible
enough to fight, kill, and die together; to use weapons of awesome power;
to survive brutality and torture if captured.  I think that, in all of
this character-building, the military could sort of figure out how to
drill in a little tolerance.


|  furthermore,
| that (unlike the case with blacks), it is NOT important to the united
| states to integrate gays at that expense.

Please tell me why one is important and the other isn't?

|  Other arguments, such as
| violation of privacy of hets also exist.

If I am required to shower with a bunch of other men, how is it different
if some number of them are gay?  How is my privacy more violated?

There are, now, quite a few gays in the military.  Is the privacy of a
het more violated if sie knows that other people in the shower are gay?

   Fritz