HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: owen@autodesk.com (D. Owen Rowley)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Lifestyle Choices and Secular Reasoning
Date: 6 Jan 93 20:56:33 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.homosexuality

In article <1993Jan5.120245.4463@netcom.com>, harp@netcom.com (Gregory O. Harp) writes:
> kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (kellmeyer steven l) writes:
> >Try reading the Declaration of Independence sometime.  Note
> >the reference to "nature and Nature's God" paragraph one, 
> >that men "are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights"
> >paragraph 2, and that "with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine
> >Providence" last paragraph.  
 
> I am perfectly aware of the references to the Christan God in the D.
> of I.  Jefferson was a Deist, but by no stretch of the word was he a
> Christian.  The references to "God" were common in the literature of
> the day, and were politically correct.  They served the needs of the
> American colonies, especially when King George III supposedly had
> "divine providence".  Call it undermining the king's authority.

How can you be *aware* of those references and state that they refer
to the christian god? These men were *ALL* high ranking Masons.
These men were *ALL* actively pursuing a State in which the exoteric
factors where in line with the esoteric doctrine of the Masonic Fraternity,
not christianity. The hermetic significance of Nature and Natures god 
from a masonic POV is enough to send good christians running for the holy
water. The inalienable rights meant are beyond the comprehension of
people who need a holy book of revealed scripture to tell them whats
moral and whats not.

> >The proof is based on faith.  

> However, like I said, science at least offers proof of some of its
> basic phenomena.  Religion offers none.
 
What you are expected to believe on faith, *cannot* be proven.

> I find it amazing, though characteristic of many Christians, that you
> see your narrow views as "what religion is about".  This goes to show
> how little you know about it.  Several billion people would disagree
> with you.

In fact, heres a home work assignment.
lets go look at the percentages.

what percentage of the worlds population is christian?

LUX ./. owen

--
D. Owen Rowley {uunet,fernwood,sun}!autodesk!owen, owen@autodesk.com
[ EU-PHORIA: A STATE OF WELL BEING ]
Euphoria is my natural state, I do what I enjoy and an abundance 
of all good fortune comes to me for it.
From: dbernard@clesun.Central.Sun.COM (Dave Bernard)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Sexuality
Date: 12 Jan 93 21:53:59 GMT
Reply-To: dbernard@clesun.Central.Sun.COM
Organization: Sun Microsystems
NNTP-Posting-Host: clesun.central.sun.com

In article 5KE@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu, albrigh@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (thomas g albright) writes:
>In article <1993Jan7.230322.914@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
>>
>>Please, state the name of one Christian who has killed a homosexual.
>>
>>Ted
>
>Adolph Hitler!


I've never heard of Hitler being a Christian.  The Nazis & SS followed a  sort of
weird, half-baked, pseudo-Teutonic, quasi-runic, set of rituals that owed more to
Wagner's conception of pagan "Wodenism" than to any Christian sect I've ever heard
of.  What sect of Christianity did Hitler belong to, by the way, and at what
church did he worship?

	Dave
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: judi@wam.umd.edu (Jay T Stein -- visualize whirled peas)
Subject: Re: Colorado Amendment2 Query
Originator: judi@rac1.wam.umd.edu
Organization: The Bedrock Royal Order of Water Buffaloes
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 07:13:10 GMT

[a.p.h added to newsgroup line]

What: <1993Jan5.152102.3981@octel.com>
Who:  keithp@octel.com (Keith Perrin)

>> = woodstock!chris@mcnc.org (Chris Fulmer) [on Colorado Amendment 2]

>>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."
>
>Finally, a very good summation of how the mainstream feel, but boy are you
>(and me probably) going to be flamed for being [...] [gratuitousness deleted]

You're wrong.  I wish you were right, but you are wrong.  If the mainstream
really felt as you claimed, there would be no problem.  But the mainstream
*do* care - they say that homosexuality is immoral.  Some say that it should
be banned.  Some even think homosexuals should legally be shot.  In 1989 in
Texas, judge Jack Hampton lessened the sentence of a convicted murderer,
saying that the "gays" shouldn't have been out on the streets "cruising for
teenage boys."  A gay friend of mine in college (the only one who came
out to me) reported regular harassment and abuse from other residents of his
dorm.  A religious evangelist visiting that same college said that homosexuals
should be killed.  Violence against homosexauls continues to increase.

The claim that the mainstream says, "You're gay?  So what?" is grossly,
and unfortunately, wrong.  If you want to test this claim, try telling
random acquaintances that *you* are gay, and see if you detect a who-cares
response.
--
When a man loves a woman, he supports her right to choose.

     _____     __      __                -=* Jay T Stein *=-
   |   |      |  \    /              
   |   |  in  |   |  |                Internet: judi@wam.umd.edu
|__|   |      |__/    \__                GEnie: J.STEIN18
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:13558 alt.politics.correct:6139
From: glen@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Glen Sonnenberg)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.correct
Subject: Discrimination
Date: 8 Jan 93 20:47:31 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson AZ

I am writing this because I am unable to understand why people think
that government must make laws to end discrimination.  First, let me
state that I have a fundamental belief that government should take as
small a role as possible.  With that in mind, I don't think that the 
government should make laws to "protect" select groups of people or
set aside extra rights to these groups.  I think that employers should
hire the best person for the job.  I DO NOT, however, think that we
should make a law that says they MUST.  If an employer wants to hire
someone who is not the best for the job, then they will suffer.  If
they are willing to face the consequences then they shouldn't have
to worry about being sued based on their hiring preferences.  If I 
don't want to hire a homosexual because I disagree with their lifestyle 
(be it chosen or genetic) then I should have that right.  Laws that are
being made to protect small minority groups are making "some people more
equal than others".  I think these laws are being made to solve a problem
that would eventually work itself out.  These laws may have a quicker
short-term effect but I think they eventually do more harm than good
because of resentment in other groups who perceive these laws as reverse-
discrimination.  GOVERNMENT CANNOT MAKE THE PLAYING FIELD LEVEL.  If it
tries, it provides disincentives for those who excel beyond the average.
I would prefer a chance at being the best, than having to live with mediocrity.
From: dbernard@clesun.Central.Sun.COM (Dave Bernard)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Chelsea's school ...
Date: 7 Jan 93 18:55:04 GMT
Reply-To: dbernard@clesun.Central.Sun.COM
Organization: Sun Microsystems
NNTP-Posting-Host: clesun.central.sun.com

>Get realistic! There is very little comparison between the public and
>private school environment. School populations are usually smaller as are
>class sizes in private schools. Also, the general environment is much more
>controlled. I doubt that crack dealers are hiding in the fire escapes of 
>C

>I see no advantage to putting a member of the first family at risk to
>satisfy conservative whiners. And if you don't think there is any risk 
>I suggest you look closely at the D.C. school system. 

This sort of elitist attitude is a little frightening.  It's OK for the
children of the underpriveleged huddled masses to be murdered in the hallways,
but the children of the rich and powerful somehow deserve better?  I thought
promoting special priveleges for the rich was the exact opposite of the the Clintons' platform?

	Dave
From: glen@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Glen Sonnenberg)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Lifestyle Choices (wa
Date: 7 Jan 93 21:55:26 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson AZ

In article <3602.97.uupcb@hal9k.ann-arbor.mi.us> laurel.schippers@hal9k.ann-arbor.mi.us (Laurel Schippers) writes:
>GS>From: glen@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Glen Sonnenberg)
>GS>Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt
>GS>itics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
>GS>Subject: Re: Lifestyle Choices (was  Re: Sexuality)
>GS>Message-ID: <1993Jan4.192724.25322@galileo.physics.arizona.edu>
>GS>Date: 4 Jan 93 19:27:24 GMT
>GS>References: <C03vn5.77K@NeoSoft.com> <1992Dec31.204741.11263@anasazi.com> <1
>GS>an1.065155.5726@netcom.com>
>GS>Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson AZ
>
>GS>I saw a show on PBS that showed an example of gang rape in a certain species
>GS>of whales.  Three whales trap a female and each take turns having sex with
>GS>her.  Does this mean that we should accept gang rape "because it is seen
>GS>in nature"?
>
>It's interesting that you parallel gang-rape and homosexuality. The harm
>of rape is very obvious. Where is the harm of loving a person of
>the same gender as yourself?

I wasn't equating the two I was just point out how idiotic that arguement is.
LOVING someone is not as much a problem as having anal sex with that
person.  Anal sex does contribute heavily to the spread of aids.  Besides, I'm
more against special "minorities" asking for special rights based on what I
consider to be a lifestyle choice.  When there is conclusive proof that 
homosexuality is an inescapable choice then I may be more apt to agree with
protection for them.  As it stands, I don't believe in making any law to 
protect a specific group of people just because of their lifestyle.  A law
which cover's everyone maybe, but not homosexual "minorities".
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:13652 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:12262 alt.politics.clinton:20089 alt.politics.bush:15814 alt.politics.homosexuality:9364
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: Sexuality
Date: 12 Jan 93 04:40:34 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: A.I. Chem Lab, University of Arizona

In article <1993Jan7.230757.1009@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) drivels:

>No.  I think that some things should never be addressed in public 
>schools.  I do not, for example, think that it is ever correct to 
>teach children about having sex with farm animals (which has been 
>done in some Planned Parenthood books designed for use in public 
>school sex-ed programs).

I am truely surprised, and if the situation is as you report, then
I will be aghast.   Can you prove that such a book exists?  ISBN,
publication date, ordering information? 
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: CO Boycott ordinance in Chicago
From: psg+@pitt.edu (Paul S Galvanek)
Date: 10 Jan 93 20:55:42 GMT
Followup-To: alt.rush-limbaugh
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <C0LwI8.Mq6@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> smithmc@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Lost Boy) writes:
>Alderman Mary Ann Smith of Chicago's 48th Ward is sponsoring a Chicago ordinance
>which would severely restrict official City business with the State of
>Colorado. We Gay-Rights types from the Windy City are excited about this and
>are hoping that this ordinance will pass. Ald. Smith has been a consistent
>supporter of Gay Rights in her community and in the Chicago area.
>
>Let the boycott spread.
>Lost Boy

Let the boycott spread, Ha Ha Ha.  Here let me help you find your way back to 
reality little lost boy...

I've seen reports in the last two weeks, from CBS, NBC, CNN, and several major
newspapers, all saying that the boycott is a major flop.  Colorado resorts
are reporting record numbers of visitors from not only Hollywood but nearly
every part of the country.  Heck I know several people that are going out
of their way to find and purchase product made in Colorado.

PSG 
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: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 14:01:38 GMT

mike@execu.execu.com (Mike McCants) writes:
>Nathan Engle writes:
>>Something tells me that part of 
>>that $4000/year is padding to cover fixed operational expenses.

>Could you mean the 50% that goes to "administrators"?

    That's part of it. Are you suggesting that we should have schools 
without principals or secretaries? 

>>    Both of those mechanisms already exist in some school systems. I'm 
>>all in favor of them, in precisely the same way as I'm in favor of letting 
>>public schools do the job we've hired them to do rather than trying to 
>>undercut them at every step. 

>Too bad they cost twice too much and do a terrible job. (IMO)

    I don't think the job they do is that terrible. You can find bad 
apples in every group, but in general I think that public school teachers 
are dedicated and competent.

>Too bad "shape up or ship out" doesn't apply.

    That's a serious problem, so what do we do about it? Fix the system 
and introduce accountability, or chuck the system and start from scratch?
Or, for the moment, we could just sit around and complain. That's bound 
to help, right?

>>facilities that would suddenly look very empty if the student body gets 
>>up and walks across the road to the closest private alternative.

>Wow, a jillion students on the march.  Empty facilities don't cost
>much to operate.  The good teachers would also go across the road.
>Too bad it can't possibly happen overnight.

    I wouldn't have nearly as many reservations about accomodating you 
school choice people if it didn't seem blatantly obvious that you want to 
dismantle everything that has been accomplished in public schools.

--
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: datepper@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Aaron Tepper)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Keywords: abortion
Date: 11 Jan 93 18:04:36 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Princeton University
Originator: news@nimaster

In article <1993Jan8.155238.7975@galileo.physics.arizona.edu>,
krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:

>The woman hung out a sign that said "baby welcome" when she had sex.  It
>is one of those laws of nature, when women have sex, babies will result.
>Not always, but sometimes.  Therefore, if the baby would be an intruder,
>then don't hang out the welcome sign.

Well, Ted, let's talk, man-to-man. When you have sex, do you have
procreation on your mind, or just a tingling little itch you need
to get rid of?

Tep
-- 
I don't need you to worry for me 'cause I'm all right | Dear Lord, give
I don't want you to tell me it's time to come home.   | me chastity... 
I don't care what you say anymore, this is my life.   |    but not yet.
Go ahead with your own life, leave me alone. --B. Joel| --St. Augustine
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:12961 talk.politics.misc:66203 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:11460 alt.politics.bush:15490
From: rlc1028@zeus.tamu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Gay Marriages (was Re: Your own words, of course != bigot)
Date: 4 Jan 1993 15:38 CST
Organization: Texas A&M University, College Station, TX
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: zeus.tamu.edu

In article <1993Jan4.125617.21266@uswmrg.mrg.uswest.com.mrg.uswest.com>, greg_bradt@msmgate.mrg.uswest.com (Greg Bradt aka The Lensman) writes...

|The best argument for gay marriages is that such life partners are not
|eligible for benefits that marriage partners get.  The best argument against
|is that, since marriage is fundamentally a religious institution, to allow
|marriages contrary to religious morality would be blasphemy.  

	I know you're on the good side, Greg.  But the blasphemy part
would depend on in what religion the couple are married.  There's
no blasphemy within the Unitarian Churches, no blasphemy in the MCCs.
Since religion is supposed to be a freedom in the USA, then those who
limited themselves only to religious arguments wouldn't get very far.
Which is fine.


|You're right, of course.  The real root of this problem is that so many
|people see equal treatment for gays as some kind of "special right" to which
|they are not entitled.
| 
|Greg Bradt aka ()The Lensman()

	Yeah.  Imagine, the right to be treated as a normal person is
considered to be a special right.  "Special rights" is just political
Right-speak (unless we're talking about affirmative action).

     ____                _
    /    )               /          
   /    /               /       
  (____/   ___     ___ /   ___,    ___   ,___ 
__    /   ____)   /   /   (__     /   )  /   )
 /   /   /   /   /   /       )   /   /  /   /     
(___/   (___(_  (___(_  (___/   (___/  /   (__
From: laurel.schippers@hal9k.ann-arbor.mi.us (Laurel Schippers) 
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: "ALLEGED" DISCRIMINATION
Date: 3 Jan 93 20:28:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: HAL 9000 BBS, W-NET HQ, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
Reply-To: laurel.schippers@hal9k.ann-arbor.mi.us (Laurel Schippers) 

Date: 01-02-93 (15:17)              Number: 3303 of 3345
  To: ALL                           Refer#: NONE
From: PAUL S GALVANEK                 Read: (N/A)
Subj: Re: Sexuality                 Status: PUBLIC MESSAGE
Conf: RUSH_LIMBAUGH (97)         Read Type: GENERAL (+)

Do they now?  It's funny but for all this talk of the supposed
discrimination
of gays, I can't but help to remember another article in Newsweek I read
not so long ago.  The article was about a new mail order catalog aimed
at
gay consumers and couples and in it the gays that were starting this
venture cited a few stats that led them to believe their product filled
some need.  Among the numbers they mentioned were the "facts" that gay
couples had generally higher incomes than their het counterparts, had
larger percentage of their income that was considered disposable
(absence
of children as a rule), had generally higher levels of education and
substantially higher rates of employeement etc etc.
---------------------------------------------------------

Well, gee, Paul, do you think all those rich fags are OUT gays?
They keep their jobs by keeping their mouths shut about their
lives.  People of all social groups and incomes are gay.
People who are vocal about being gay are not going to find their
employers or co-workers too friendly.  They may dislike the idea
of their children being taunted at school, anonymous phone threats,
and suddenly getting the silent treatment from those who know.

One mail order catalog does not prove your point.
        
----
+------------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| 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 |
+------------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
From: jhb@calmasd.prime.com (Jim Bishop)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Sexuality
Date: 8 Jan 93 19:19:23 GMT
Organization: -

In article <1ii64tINN188@cronkite.Central.Sun.COM>, dbernard@clesun.Central.Sun.COM (Dave Bernard) writes:
> In article 4s6@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu, albrigh@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (thomas g albright) writes:
>>
>>This is absolutely false!  Everywhere in the world where there is sex
>>education, children postpone the onset of sexual behavior, and then
>>engage in it less often.  STD rates are lowered too.
>>
>>-Tom Albright
> 
> 20 and 40 years ago, before widespread public sex ed, teenage sex rates,
> illegitimate pregnancies, VD were at a certain level.  Today, after a 
> good amount of exposure to sex ed, these rates are much, much higher.

I've read that rates as a percentage of population for teen
pregnancies are pretty much the same.  

> This is all according to US government studies, you can look 'em up.  

So you look them up.  Let's see your stats.

> Now, you might say that there is no causal relationship from sex ed.  You
> might even argue that these rates could be higher without sex ed-- 

Well the "sexual revolution" also occurred in the last 25 years.  I
would imagine that more sex lead to higher rates.  I'd also argue that
useful sex ed for preventing STD's and pregnancy has been around for
less than 10 years. 

> though
> illegitimacy among black births is now something like 66%, and I wonder how
> much higher it could go-- but the one thing that can't be said is that
> there is less and later sex activity, or that VD rates are lower.  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.  

The reason that the number of AIDS cases continues to increase is lack
of education about how the virus is spread.  The federal government
(read Reagan) had decided that AIDS was a "gay disease" and refused to
enact a national education program until the late 80's.  The current
administration has also refused to inact the recommendations of its
own AIDS commission.

Do you not believe that HIV would be spreading even faster had no
attempt at education had occurred?

Jim
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.sex,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.correct,alt.politics.equality
From: jimbo@leland.Stanford.EDU (Godfather of Soul)
Subject: Re: Protection for homosexuals *is* valid (Was "Colorado Amendment2 Query")
Organization: NewsRUs
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 93 06:39:12 GMT

In article <7JAN199309294308@zeus.tamu.edu> rlc1028@zeus.tamu.edu writes:
>
>	Certainly.  Why not say something like: "No person shall
>	be deprived of employment, housing, or economic service
>	simply due to his or her actual or perceived sexual ori-
>	entation - regardless of what that orientation may be."
>
>Any additions or suggestions?  Let me know.

So, if I didn't want to buy groceries at a certain grocery store
because the owner was gay, I could be thrown in jail?  This would
be denying the individual employment.

James


-- 
James W. Brown		-  I dream of the day when conservatives learn   	-
			-  the difference between a sin and a crime and  	-
			-  liberals learn the difference between a       	-
			-  virtue and a requirement.      --William A. Niskanen	-
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality