HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jmfuchs@unix.amherst.edu (JESSE MICHAEL FUCHS)
Subject: Re: Education Regarding Alternative Family Units (Re: The Analogy Betwixt Gays & Blacks (Re: Children in Same-gender Families))
Followup-To: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
Organization: Amherst College
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL7]
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 01:09:56 GMT

Tom Perigrin (tip@lead.aichem.arizona.edu) wrote:
> 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.
	As a charter member of the MTV generation, I can attest that I saw
at least two heterosexual same-sex couples: "Kate & Allie," and the two guys
on "My Two Dads." 
	Admittedly, neither "couple" shared a bed. 
> 
> 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.

							-Skippy
From: nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Just my musing....
Date: 22 Dec 92 15:53:42 GMT
Organization: Psych Department, Indiana University

f0358@desire.wright.edu writes:
>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!!!!!!!

    Somehow I doubt that your comment has that "timeless" aspect which 
will keep flames alive for 8 more years.

>Sorry,

    Apology noted and accepted.

>Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!!!!!
>Peace on earth and Goodwill to men (if that's not too liberal for y'all)

    No, if you really wanted to get too liberal for the Rush Limbaugh crowd 
you should have said "Goodwill to non-gender-or-ethnic-specific-persons". 
Nice try, though.

--
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.homosexuality
From: mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org (Mike A. McAngus)
Subject: Re: Lifestyle Choices (was  Re: Sexuality)
Organization: Homebrew Virtual Reality Labs
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 01 Jan 1993 22:12:48 GMT

Brian Douglass (briand@anasazi.com) wrote:
: In article <1992Dec31.005642.14893@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov> fogarty@sir-c.jpl.nasa
.gov (Tim Fogarty) writes:

[smoking parallel, that was decimated by the Lensman in a previous post, 
deleted]

: >How does granting equal protection to homosexuals impact the greater good
: >of the public ?
:
: Why is it necessary?  My employer has no idea nor needs to know my sexual
: preferences, attitudes, choices.  Why must homosexuality have protection?
: Must blonds next have protection because some hair-brained scientist shows
: that on average they have lower IQs?  Where does it stop?

Poor analogy.  If you boss sees one of your co-workers entering a gay bar, and 
susequently fires that co-worker due to unacceptable life style, then the 
co-worker MUST have legal recourse to such unfair discrimination.

:
: Discrimination in the work place based on anything other than job
: qualifications, is discrimination.  Why must we pigeon hole everyone in
: society into these little minorities?

From my understanding, CO2 would disqualify the above discrimination suit.
[Can Someone email the text of CO2 to me?  I have not been able to find it in
my local library]

BTW, those engaging in discrimination already pigeonhole everyone.

:                                        That does nothing by fractionalize
: society and encourage stereotyping, and the inherit prejudices that go
: along with that.  We've all heard the stories "Oh, he's black, he must have
: got here on Affirmative Action."  "Oh, look how sexy she dress, she must
: have got there on her back."  "Oh, she's the bosses daughter, she got her
: job from nepotism."

As opposed to the 'good old days':  "He's a nigger, he's not qualified", "She's
too pushy, she must be a lesbo.  Don't promote her.", "God she's sexy, I'll 
keep her as my personal secretary.", "We can find a spot for my daughter in 
your department for my daughter now, can't we?"  
I think we are both saying that merit is the only valid reason for hiring and 
promotion.  Unfortunately, many people have biases against certain people that 
has nothing to do with their qualifications.

:
: Everytime we label another group of people under the law, we implicitly make
: them seperate but equal, and that isn't equal.

Until racism, sexism, orientationism, agism, and other anti-group-isms are 
eliminated from the business world; there must be legal remedies for people who
suffer from these forms of discrimination.
-- 
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
From: cd651@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Wally L. Blume)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Just my musing....
Date: 22 Dec 1992 16:48:43 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: cd651@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Wally L. Blume)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, f0358@desire.wright.edu () says:

>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)

  I think this is an appropriate time to point out that when a someone 
doesn't agree with Rush, but can't logicaly say why, they result to personal
attacks.
-- 
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
   /   / __  /  /     |         Wally Blume         | Earth:
  /   / _ / /  / /_/  |      Internet address:      |    Mostly harmless.     
 /_/_/ /_/ /  / __/   | cd651@cleveland.freenet.edu |-HH Guide to the Galaxy
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:12401 talk.politics.space:1635 sci.space:18373
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.space,sci.space
Subject: Re: Justification for the Space Program
Date: 29 Dec 92 17:51:58 GMT
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Distribution: usa, world
Organization: Destructive Testing Systems

In article <1hobsgINN3b1@agate.berkeley.edu> tyersome@cavebear.Berkeley.EDU (Randall Tyers) writes:
>In article <1992Dec23.110509.22141@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary
>Coffman) writes:
>[...] 
>>
>>Large scale imports from space face a dire problem in any event. What
>>are we going to do with all that extra mass? Earth's gravitational 
>>field will so increase that no one will be able to stand if we bring
>>in too much from space. Ultimately we have no choice but to use and
>>reuse the materials here on Earth. Fortunately that is getting easier
>>and easier as technology advances.
>>
>>Gary
>
>If this was a joke (it has to be right?? doesn't it?) you should have
>indicated this in some manner. (eg. :-) or ;-) )  As your statement
>stands it raises doubts about your comprehension of very basic
>physics.  

Well of course this was a form of reducto absurdum  argument. The
idea that we solve all our problems by dragging in more junk from
space eventually leads to the absurd case where we are overwhelmed
with all the extra junk. The Earth's mass isn't declining and doesn't
need bolstering. To date we haven't thrown any away except what's been
shot into space. The gauge reads full, not empty, so imports from
space are simply, and literally, overkill. Whether imports crush us
or not is simply a matter of scale, not principle.

Gary

-- 
Gary Coffman KE4ZV          |    You make it,     | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary
Destructive Testing Systems |    we break it.     | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary
534 Shannon Way             |    Guaranteed!      | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary      
Lawrenceville, GA 30244     |                     | emory!ke4zv!gary@gatech.edu
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: fogarty@sir-c.jpl.nasa.gov (Tim Fogarty)
Subject: Re: Showering in the Military (Re: Gays in the Military..what nobody is talking about: )
Organization: JPL, Space Imaging Radar Software Group
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 01:43:31 GMT


In article <1992Dec31.002350.21895@anasazi.com>, briand@anasazi.com (Brian Douglass) writes:
|>
|>>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?
|>

Is sodomy (I assume you mean anal) and oral copulation banned between a
soldier and his/her spouse ?  Is it banned between a soldier on leave and 
a civilian when its performed off base ?  Certainly, the laws should apply
equally to all members of the military: gay or straight, married or not.

It should be of no concern to the military what type of sex a soldier has.  
But the military may have legitament concerns on who the soldier has sex
with (another soldier, an officer, etc), and where (on base, on duty).

And one more time...currently the military will  kick you out for
just being gay, even if they have no evidence that you have had 
same-gender sex.


--
Tim Fogarty
Sys Man and Sys Admin for the EGSE in the POCC at JSC for SRL-1, STS-59
FOGARTY@SIR-C.JPL.NASA.GOV
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle)
Subject: Re: Just my musing....
Organization: Psych Department, Indiana University
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 21:07:58 GMT

dsl24@cas.org () writes:
>What is wrong with referring to mankind as "man" ?

    Sorry, Doug, but to even ask that question is a heinous PC violation. 
Looks like a bundle of switches for you this year.

--
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: kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (kellmeyer steven l)
Subject: Re: Lifestyle Choices and Secular Reasoning
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 00:20:03 GMT

rj24@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Robert  Johnston) writes:

>In article <1993Jan2.235727.5838@netcom.com> howard@netcom.com (Howard Berkey) 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:
>>>>> In article <1992Dec29.233922.2539@netcom.com> harp@netcom.com (Gregory O. Harp) writes:
>>>>> 
>>>>All people are asking is that unless you can come up with some
>>>>*secular* reason for why their lifestyle choice is bad, you grant
>>>>them the same rights they are willing to grant you: the right to
>>>>live their life without persecution.
>>>
>>>Why is *secular* reasoning superior to religious reasoning? 
>>>
>>
>>Because not everyone gives a damn about religion.  The majority of the
>>world population isn't Christian.  (Although Catholicism is the
>>largest single religion).  Besides, 'religious reasoning' sounds like
>>an oxymoron.  
>>
>>Andrew Jackson had a lot to say about avoiding religious arguments
>>pertaining to legislation.
>>
>>> [loads of opinionated attacks on secular reasoning deleted]
>>
>>Look, whatever your opinion of secular reasoning, religiously
>>justified 'reasoning' has a pretty poor history as well.  The Catholic
>>church is responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths alone.  Look
>                                       ^^^^^^^^^
>>at Hezbollah for a good example of religious 'reasoning'.
>>
>>-Howard
>>
>>
>Shouldn't that be millions?

Millions should be used in reference to those wars started since 
"the Age of Reason".  No matter how you add the numbers, more people
have been killed by the judicious application of science in support
of secular reasons for killing than have been killed by all wars of
religion combined.

Steve Kellmeyer
-- 

Steve Kellmeyer 
kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:12498 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:10918 alt.politics.clinton:19236 alt.politics.bush:15073 alt.politics.homosexuality:8566
From: smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Sexuality
Date: 30 Dec 1992 20:42:33 GMT
Organization: Colorado Springs IT Center
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: fajita19.cs.itc.hp.com

marco@sdf.lonestar.org (Steve Giammarco) writes:
> 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. 

Um, actually, *I* didn't write that paragraph, although I've seen 4 articles 
that are attributing it to me...

> 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.

Yes, I agree that parents need to realize that their children may have 
different belief systems that will clash with their parents.  

> 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.

What do you think if a parent says that they dont think homosexuality is 
OK, but they still love their child? 

Walter

Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: fogarty@sir-c.jpl.nasa.gov (Tim Fogarty)
Subject: Re: Sexuality
Organization: JPL, Space Imaging Radar Software Group
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 19:47:03 GMT


In article <1992Dec30.162502.6756@asl.dl.nec.com>, 
dillhoff@aslws01.asl.dl.nec.com (Doug Dillhoff) writes:
|>
|>Unlike heterosexuality, which is dictated by nature, homosexuality
|>is a lifestyle choice and should not be presented as such to school
|>

What evidence do you have of this ?  And how do you dismiss the scientific
evidence that suggests otherwise ?  I would really like to know.


--
Tim Fogarty
Sys Man and Sys Admin for the EGSE in the POCC at JSC for SRL-1, STS-59
FOGARTY@SIR-C.JPL.NASA.GOV
Organization: Stanford Linear Accelerator Center
Date: Tuesday, 22 Dec 1992 17:41:38 PST
From: <HARVEY@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU>
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Just my musing....

In article <61s2ry@rpi.edu>, root@june.cmp.rpi.edu (J.R. Ordon) says:
>
>In article <1992Dec22.085718.6333@desire.wright.edu> f0358@desire.wright.edu
>writes:
>>Well, I think I'll probably be flamed into the 21st century for this but I   t
>jus
>>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)
>
>There's tolerance for ya!!......
>
What does statements of fact have to do with tolerance???

harold
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: root@june.cmp.rpi.edu (J.R. Ordon)
Subject: Re: The "L" word
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 15:11:18 GMT

In article <1992Dec22.074155.21558@jcnpc.cmhnet.org> mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org (Mike A. McAngus) writes:
>Owen Barrus (omb@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM) wrote:
>: In alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, crowder@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Mark Crowder) writes:
>
>Useless, gratuitious flame that adds nothing to the conversation and is not 
>warranted by the original post.
>
>I view liberalism as, essentially, the belief that the old ways are not useful 
>and new ways must be tried.  Under this example, Ben Franklin and Mikhal 
>Gorbechev were liberals.  Liberalism is time and culture dependent.
>
>I classify myself as a liberal and hold to the following beliefs:
>1) Civil liberties are important to the point where every care must be taken in
>criminal trials so that innocent people are not wrongly convicted.
>2) Tax exemptions for all religious income and property should be repealed.
>3) Only charitable organizations that directly benefit the poor should remain
>tax exempt.
>4) Tax deductions for political contributions should be eliminated.
>5) The country should go to a year-round school calendar.
>6) The Electoral College should be done away with.
>7) Abortion should remain safe and legal.
>8) Anyone who is invited to speak anywhere should be allowed to be heard, and 
>any disruptive elements should be removed from the venue.
>9) Homosexual activity should not be deemed a crime.
>10) Gays should be allowed in the military.
>
>And the list goes on and on.
>-- 

As a conservative, I totally agree with you in numbers 2,3,4,5,6,8,9.

The rest?

Number 1... well yes, but we must do something about the victims rights also.

Number 7 ... Personally, I'm pro-life, but I do not feel that I should force
             my personal beliefs on others.(unlike some liberals & 
             Conservatives). Majority rule should prevail.

Number 10 ..Gays ARE in the military, if people doubt this, they're naive.
            yes, gays cannot admit it, and this should be changed, but with
            moderation.

Now for my additions...

Number 11.  All people should have equal rights, NOT special rights.
Number 12.  Job employment should be based on ability and qualifications,
            NOT quotas. This puts me against Affirmative Action.
Number 13.  Criminals should be treated as just that. I do not believe
            in making excuses for their actions, bad childhood, poor family, 
            Child abuse, ad nausem. Criminals should not be slapped on the
            wrist, build more prisons if need be. Eliminate the parole
            system and have standard sentences for crimes.
         
and so on...

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

J.R. Ordon
Standard disclaimers apply
From: stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Morton Downey
Keywords: Religious Right
Date: 21 Dec 92 05:23:42 GMT
Reply-To: stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce)
Organization: Handmade Designs, Salem, OR, USA

In article <daj20.723853491@junkers> daj20@amdahl.com
(Daniel A Jatnieks) writes:
|	but there are some convervatives who do believe
|	that religion should be more greatly integrated
|	into our society *by means of the government*.
|	that does scare me.

Well, that would concern me too, but I don't know what you are talking about.
Exactly what policies have you heard proposed that cause you such alarm?

|	this is not to imply that *you* believe this,
|	but you are aware there are conservatives who do,
|	right?  do you consider these the "ultra-right"?
|	if so, where do you think regean, bush, buchannen,
|	and quayle stand (ultra-right)? 

What exactly have Reagan, et al, said or done that makes you think that
they want to use the government to force religion on you, or whatever you
think they want to do?  I really don't understand your fear (and I not a
Christian, and I certainly don't want the government imposing religion on
anyone).  Please explain it to me.
-- 
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: 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: Fri, 25 Dec 1992 17:52:44 GMT

Keywords: 

In article <1hdkcqINNq40@fido.asd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
]In article <1hdjfpINNcps@hp-col.col.hp.com>, smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes:
]|> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
]|> > In the meantime, I note that Navy officials reported last Monday 14th
]|> > that a Chicago Heights 22-year old sailor may have been killed by
]|> > shipmates because he was gay.
]|> 
]|> Ugly, very ugly.  No argument on that one..
]
]Ugly.   And also official, and apparently a fatal anti-Gay hate crime.

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.

-- 
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
This is a newer version of the memetic .signature infection.  Now that's an
idea.  Copy it into your .signature today!
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality