HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
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: 7 Jan 1993 18:07:09 GMT
Organization: Colorado Springs IT Center
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: fajita19.cs.itc.hp.com

briand@anasazi.com (Brian Douglass) writes:
> The real crux is not marriage, but
> FAMILY.  That is the support of an adult(s) to provide a nurturing
> environment to the child(ren).  Whether that is done by one parent, 2, or
> an extended family of aunts and uncles, etc, the point is that a child has
> a family supporting it.

Agreed.  What I was expressing was that all other things being equal, a family 
with 2 parents will have more ability to care for children than a family with 
1.  Doesn't mean a family with one parent can't; my parents were divorced, 
and I was raised by my mother, I think she did a great job.  I also had 
a close-knit extended family of grandparents, aunts/uncles, cousins, etc. 

> What business is it of yours how two adults view their sexual relationship
> as long as their actions are consensual between them and do not impinge on
> your rights? 

It isn't; I wasn't suggesting that there be laws made about it, etc.   
I may not find things "moral", but that doesnt mean I want to stick my 
nose into their business.  What people do is their own business. 

> Clearly there is little apparent respect in such activity, but
> what business is it to you or me of such actions, given the consent and
> lack of impingement?

None, I was responding with my _opinion_ as to the morality involved, 
which was asked for. 

Walter

Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:13555 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:12184 alt.politics.clinton:20027 alt.politics.bush:15789 alt.politics.homosexuality:9317
From: glen@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Glen Sonnenberg)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Lifestyle Choices (was  Re: Sexuality)
Date: 8 Jan 93 19:57:44 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson AZ

In article <1993Jan8.002140.16896@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> tip@lead.aichem.arizona.edu (Tom Perigrin) writes:
>In article <1993Jan4.230242.27027@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> glen@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Glen Sonnenberg) writes:
>
>>Ted is merely doing something that is necessary in this type of forum. 
>
>That is one interpratation, there are others (vida infra).
>
>>Given the amount of flames, opinion and BS that is spread on the net,
>>it is always useful to have a source handy so what you post is credible.
>
>Always?  Don't you mean "often".  Could you provide a reference to
>prove that it is "always useful", as opposed to "often useful" ??

Agreed.

>
>>I have posted requests for a lot of information that is put out as
>>fact and haven't received much backing up these broad based statements.
>
>Could you define "a lot", and "haven't recieved much"?  Then, could you
>provide accurate statistics, complete with message references, dates,
>etc., to make sure that your broad based statement is backed up by fact?
>
>Annoying, isn't it?

Kind of, but given the amount of talk on homosexuality on this group 
I figured it wouldn't be hard to find some real facts.  I have asked
a couple times and hoped that I would get a good cross-section of what
the current evidence regarding homosexuality as a trait is.  
Unfortunately this discussion has turned into a philosophical discussion
which is merely argued rather than backed up by facts. 

>
>in a larger context.  Conversely, I find that people who use it as a 
>badgering technique are narrow minded weasels who generally just use it 
>as a one line message without context.

In this instance I believe there was a little of both.

>
>P.S.  Nice to "meet" you. It's nice to know that somebody over in
>physics seems to be an 'intelligent thoughtful' person.
>

How dare you accuse me of being "intelligent, thoughtful"... :)
Anyway, I think there may be those who disagree.  Although I usually try
and think my response through, sometimes I get a kick out of making
antagonistic statements just to get a rise out of people.  It has been
my experience that this type of response gets more discussion more times 
than simple, non-offensive statements.  In these cases, I hope I don't 
lose your respect.  Hasta.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: ecl@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (Evelyn C. Leeper)
Subject: Re: Why the "argument from Nature" matters
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 18:28:25 GMT

In article <1ihlbiINNcq1@hp-col.col.hp.com> smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes:
> gsmith@polyhymnia.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de (Gene W. Smith) writes:
> > The most fundamental and pervasive *intellectual* reason why Western
> > civilization regarded homosexuality as evil in the first place stemmed
> > from the idea that it was unnatural, and the reason it was thought to
> > be unnatural was that animals were thought to seldom or never engage
> > in homosexual behavior.  This line of thinking goes back to the Greek
> > philosophers, and when combined with the idea that God created nature
> > in a certain way, and that God had explicitly prohibited homosexuality
> > because of its unnaturalness (as Paul apparently thought), we find the
> > intellectual basis for the wide-spread aversion to homosexuality.
> 
> I didn't think of it as "unnatural" because "animals don't do it".  
> Animals do lots of things that would be 'inappropriate' for people; 
> if a male co-worker started humping my leg, for example...;-).
> It's more a matter of how the cycle of life works in nature; sex 
> is the veichle that keeps the cycle of life going.  It is an instinctive, 
> "natural" part of nature.  

As opposed to the "unnatural" parts of nature?

One cannot have a reasonable discussion without agreeing on the
meanings of the terms used.  If I understand you correctly, "natural"
means "that which keeps the cycle of life going."  In that case, oral
sex, kissing, dieting, reading, dancing, and posting to Usenet are all
unnatural, while rape and procreation starting at menarche are
natural.  While this definition may be of some academic interest, I
don't think it does anything for this discussion.

Read what Gene said.  People are *still* posting here that "you never see
homosexuality in animals," so that *is* what they mean.

Evelyn C. Leeper  |  +1 908 957 2070  |  att!mtgzy!ecl or  ecl@mtgzy.att.com
--
"To make the point [that homosexuals hamper military effectiveness] I'd
say that you would have to sift through your military history till you
find an instance in which failure has been attributed to the presence
of homosexuals on the losing side.  I'm not aware of any such case in
the past 2500 years, but I'd be interested to hear what you find."
-Nathan Engle
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality,talk.religion.misc
From: gsmith@polyhymnia.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de (Gene W. Smith)
Subject: Re: Sexuality
Organization: IWR, University of Heidelberg, Germany
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 93 19:31:13 GMT

In article <1hvv30INNeca@hp-col.col.hp.com> smithw@col.hp.com (Walter
Smith) writes:

>I've even had people tell me that *my* attitude causes other people to
>kill themselves.  THAT is worse than *anything* me, Cramer, or anyone
>else I've seen post here.

Cramer posts stuff which is delusional and hateful, nether which is
true of this.  If the excess rate of suicide among gay teens does not
come from societal disapproval, where do you imagine it does come
from?  If societal disapproval does not come in part from religious
ideas, where do you suppose it does come from?

This does not in itself prove that your disapproval is wrong; I can
imagine that someone might commit suicide because a strong urge to
commit sexual murder could not be reconciled with their own
disapproval of sexual murder.

But it strongly suggests that at minimum their is something wrong with
the way you and your co-religionists are conveying your
disapprobation.  My own opinion is that the teen suicide is an
outgrowth in large part of the delusion that God hates homosexuality,
which I regard as bad theology (being more or less blasphemy) and
worse psychology.  Sow hate and that is what you reap.

>Yes, and the *average* christian is NOT a fundie. 

What does the average Christian think about gays and lesbians,
however?

>Maybe that's why they think everyone hates them, because they are
>projecting their way of thinking onto their (percieved) enemies??  It
>really makes me *sad*. 

When you've been beaten up and called names, it becomes easier to
think that people hate you, and harder to like people who promote the
idea that you are an inferior sort of human being.

As far as projection goes, it seems to me that the whole anti-gay
thing is mostly projection.  A person has some sort of religious
experience or upbringing, or in some way is faced with the idea of a
God who is good.  By comparison, they feel bad, especially to the
extent that they identify with the ego, which seems to be rejected
in some sense by this goodness.  They therefore feel that God must
hate them and want to attack them.  

This idea causes such anxiety that a scapegoat must be found on which
to project the sense of sin, so that God can be thought of as hating
and attacking that instead.  If you believe that God created people to
be heterosexual and that homosexuality is therefore a form of
rebellion against God, it is easy to think that gays and lesbians are
a good scapegoat.  But the mechanism as well as the results are just
the same as with other traditional scapegoats whom God is assumed to
hate (e.g., Jews, heretics, etc.)

This is the same blasphemy which has been killing all kinds of people
in the name of religion all along.

-- 
     Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/IWR/Ruprecht-Karls University 
               gsmith@kalliope.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:13223 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:11825 alt.politics.correct:6100 alt.politics.equality:26
From: tsv@Unify.com (Tim Vannaman)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.correct,alt.politics.equality
Subject: Re: Colorado Amendment2 Query
Date: 7 Jan 93 14:52:37 GMT
Organization: Unify Corporation (Sacramento)

In article <1993Jan05.220654.33157@rchland.ibm.com>, jdahl@rchland.vnet.ibm.com (Jared Dahl) writes:
> In article <C0EF49.DJz@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, mrl28033@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Michael R Linksvayer) writes:
> |> Ok, let's say it was written to appeal to bigotry. How does it
> |> legislate bigotry? Does it force anyone to discriminate against
> |> homosexuals? 
> 
> No, but it allows them to discriminate.  It prevents any law from
> being passed that makes it illegal to discriminate on the basis of
> a person's sexual orientation.  It's as simple as that.  So anyone
> charged with discriminating against someone because they are 
> homosexual can get out of it because the state constitution says
> that such laws are not legal.  
> 
> We have laws preventing murder, rape and theft.  If someone passes
> a law making these laws illegal, instances of these crimes will
> rise.  It obviously ENCOURAGES bigotry.
> 
Let  me get  this straight: If we pass a law saying murder is illegal, it
will encourage people to murder?  I think you had better rethink your
last paragraph, it doesn't make any sense.
From: kgirodias@azcc.arizona.edu
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Rodney the Great (was Re: RUSH=FAG!)
Date: 4 Jan 93 18:10:36 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Arizona UNIX Users Group

In article <1992Dec30.194347.18157@galileo.physics.arizona.edu>, krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
> In article <1992Dec30.152346.15892@cbnewsd.cb.att.com> djrea@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (david.j.rea) writes:
> 
>>"Can't we all just get along?"  -Rodney King
> 
> Quite ironic that Sir Rodney the Great said those famous words about three 
> weeks after he was arrested for beating the shit out of his wife?
> 
> Ted
> 

I hever heard that one, was it before or after he was arrested for trying
to run over a cop with a car??

Ken
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: mike@gordian.com (Michael A. Thomas)
Subject: Re: Sexuality
Organization: Gordian; Costa Mesa, CA
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 18:46:32 GMT

In article <1993Jan10.174837.26171@wam.umd.edu>, rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:
> 	Is this for real?  
> 
> 	I mean, are these "Kill a queer for Jesus" bumper stickers 
> 	anythingbut a joke, or do people take them seriously?

    About as much of a joke as the Southern Baptist Convention 
might take a bumper sticker which stated:

    "Kill a Fundie for Satan".

    You make me ill.
-- 

		Michael Thomas	(mike@gordian.com)
	"I don't think Bambi Eyes will get you that flame thrower..."  
		-- Hobbes to Calvin
		USnail: 20361 Irvine Ave Santa Ana Heights, Ca,	92707-5637
		PaBell: (714) 850-0205 (714) 850-0533 (fax)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: rj24@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Robert  Johnston)
Subject: Re: Sexuality
Reply-To: rj24@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Robert  Johnston)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 05:32:21 GMT

In article <1ii64tINN188@cronkite.Central.Sun.COM> dbernard@clesun.Central.Sun.COM 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.
>This is all according to US government studies, you can look 'em up.  
>
>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-- 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?
>
>Dave

Dave, we do not have wide spread sex-ed in the US. About 1 week in a 
high school health class is all I ever had. (NYC public school). The only 
topics that get discussed are pregnancy and VD. No mention of human 
sexuality is ever made, beyond the strictly physical sense of the female 
ovulatory cycle.

12 Years of schooling, 2 HOURS of sex-ed. From the people I have met, I 
would say this is about average elsewhere.

Robert Johnston


Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:12989 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:11498 alt.politics.clinton:19586 alt.politics.bush:15510 alt.politics.homosexuality:8930
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: Lifestyle Choices (was  Re: Sexuality)
Date: 5 Jan 93 00:44:32 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona UNIX Users Group

In article <1993Jan4.204314.19257@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> jon@Turing.ORG (Jon Gefaell (KD4CQY)) writes:

>And itsn't it with 'baited' breath?

While your breath may be "baited"  (Wbster's 7'th, bait \bat\ vt [ME baiten 
fr. ON beita, akin to OE baetan to bait, bitan to bite] 3 a: to furnish with
bait)  my breath is "bated" (ibid, bate \bat\ vb [ME baten, short for 
abaten to abate] vt 1: to reduce the force or intensity of : moderate <he 
bated his breath>.

So my question is;  what kind of breath baits do you use?  Worms?

As Rush Limbaugh says ; "It's frightening but true, every time you open
your mouth, people judge you by the words you use."
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: keith@balrog.dseg.ti.com (Keith A. Schauer)
Subject: Re: Education Regarding Alternative Family Units (Re: The Analogy Betwixt Gays & Blacks (Re: Children in Same-gender Families))
Organization: Texas Instruments Information Technology Group
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 18:39:45 GMT

In article <1993Jan5.181215.3488@porthos.cc.bellcore.com> wgb3@pyuxf.uucp (25336-buoni) writes:
>
>Better yet, SCHOOL CHOICE.  This way we can choose the school which best 
>reflects our children's needs.  Note, BTW, that I (rather than the state)
>have decided what those needs are.  I call this "parenting".
>	

	I don't understand.  What state do you live in that you can't
	send your children to the school of your choice?  Maybe you 
	should move.
-- 
Keith Schauer		Texas Instruments	Plain O, Texas
80 CB900 Custom		
DoD #0901		In an insane society, the sane man must appear insane.
			My company disavows any knowledge of my actions.
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:13437 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:12025 alt.politics.clinton:19932 alt.politics.bush:15732 alt.politics.homosexuality:9225
From: stank@perrault.unet.com (Stan Knight)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Sexuality
Date: 9 Jan 93 01:16:39 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Network Equipment Technologies, Redwood City

In article <1993Jan8.233736.2023@asl.dl.nec.com> dillhoff@aslws01.asl.dl.nec.com (Doug Dillhoff) writes:

>Promiscuity may lead to certain undeniable consequences, pregnancy,
>std's, etc. and drug use is not only illegal, it also can cause physical
>and psychological harm.  Those are the types of things that should be
>taught in the respective ed. classes. Those types of things are very
>clear cut and easily seen as problems. 


My 13 year old just completed a drug awareness course at her Jr. high. While
the morality of doing drugs was never discussed everything else was i.e. that
they are illegal and the kinds of harm that they can do to your body and
mind. She was also taught that while some drugs are not physically addicting
that all have the potenial to be psychologically addicting. This was all 
straight foward factual stuff. QUESTION:Has anyone out there had a child in
a school that taught them something different?? There's been lots of bitchin'
and moanin' in this and related threads saying that such programs don't teach
real facts about the dangers of drug use and actually encourage them to do 
drugs. ANOTHER QUESTION:During the recent campaign the Reps. were claiming 
that due to such programs(they enacted)that drug use amoung *young* people was 
down and dropping. This is one stat that I have never heard refuted. If this is
true then it seems to be proof that durg awareness programs are actually
starting to pay off.


Stan Knight
|Say it with me:                                                              |
|9er's 9er's 9er's 9er's 9er's 9er's 9er's 9er's 9er's 9er's 9er's 9er's 9er's|
|9er's 9er's 9er's 9er's 9er's 9er's 9er's 9er's 9er's 9er's 9er's 9er's 9er's|
|9er's 9er's 9er's 9er's 9er's 9er's 9er's 9er's 9er's 9er's 9er's 9er's 9er's|
|9er's 9er's 9er's 9er's 9er's 9er's 9er's 9er's 9er's 9er's 9er's 9er's 9er's|
|9er's 9er's 9er's 9er's 9er's 9er's 9er's 9er's 9er's 9er's 9er's 9er's 9er's|
|9er's 9er's 9er's 9er's 9er's 9er's 9er's 9er's 9er's 9er's 9er's 9er's 9er's|
|9er's 9er's 9er's 9er's 9er's 9er's 9er's 9er's 9er's 9er's 9er's 9er's 9er's| |9er's 9er's 9er's 9er's 9er's 9er's 9er's 9er's 9er's 9er's 9er's 9er's 9er's| |9er's 9er's 9er's 9er's 9er's 9er's 9er's 9er's 9er's 9er's 9er's 9er's 9er's|
|9er's 9er's 9er's 9er's 9er's 9er's 9er's 9er's 9er's 9er's 9er's 9er's 9er's|
|9er's 9er's 9er's 9er's 9er's 9er's 9er's 9er's 9er's 9er's 9er's 9er's 9er's| |9er's 9er's 9er's 9er's 9er's 9er's 9er's 9er's 9er's 9er's 9er's 9er's 9er's| |9er's 9er's 9er's 9er's 9er's 9er's 9er's 9er's 9er's 9er's 9er's 9er's 9er's| |9er's 9er's 9er's 9er's 9er's 9er's 9er's 9er's 9er's 9er's 9er's 9er's 9er's| |9er's 9er's 9er's 9er's 9er's 9er's 9er's 9er's 9er's 9er's 9er's 9er's 9er's| |9er's 9er's 9er's 9er's 9er's 9er's 9er's 9er's 9er's 9er's 9er's 9er's 9er's| 
Organization: Materials Science and Engineering, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 12:19:44 -0500 
From: James William Stepanek <js43+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Reich's Cultural Revolution-comments

   You know I almost gagged as I first read this article. God, what a
raving lunatic. I realy am going to get a kick from the the lofty
intellectuals on the net who supported Clinton, who apparently from the
Sec. of Labor's point of view are non-workers. Yeah, let's all go out
and dig ditches, sounds about right for entrenching the Deomcrats in any
posistion of power that they can cling to. The man was Clinton's chief
economic advisor during the campaign, and he apparently doesn't know
beans about economics or running a business. Just what we need another
Ivory tower lawyer in office, oh he'll save us from evil business, and
the "symbolic analysts". Let's take a poll, how many out you out there
in netland would be considered "symbolic analysts"? I'd say
approximately all of you. And, my how brutally you are opressing those
sweating real workers. 
    It's rather funny considering how much euphora was generated by
defeating the communists in the cold war and then the public turns
around and elects a batch in this country. This man's views ring in real
close to Mao's good old Cultural Revolution in which everthing was
obviously the fault of the intellegensia (read in symbolic analysts) and
therefore they sould be blamed for all the troubles. Granted I doubt
Clinton will have us all shot(who knows maybe Hillary will make him do
it), but he sure as hell is going to take it out in taxes.
James Stepanek
esp
Graduate Student 
Department of Materials Science and Engineering
University of Pittsburgh
Disclaimer : If Pitt knew I still used my CMU account they probably
wouldn't understand. 
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:13145 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:11717 alt.politics.clinton:19706 alt.politics.bush:15616 alt.politics.homosexuality:9042
From: borden@head-cfa.harvard.edu (Dave Borden)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Sexuality
Date: 6 Jan 93 16:53:05 GMT
Reply-To: borden@m5.harvard.edu
Distribution: usa
Organization: Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, Cambridge, MA,  USA

In article <1993Jan05.180438.5289@microsoft.com> fritzs@microsoft.com (Fritz Sands) writes:
>In article <1992Dec31.181358.17099@asl.dl.nec.com> dillhoff@aslws01.asl.dl.nec.com (Doug Dillhoff) writes:
 
>| That is the whole problem. Teachers in sex ed. and drug ed. classes are
>| told not to tell children what is right and wrong, to just present the
>| facts. This has the opposite effect of what they intend.

>This assumes that the purpose of sex ed and drug ed classes is the 
>spread of propoganda rather than information.

Actually, to support Fritz's line of thought, I'd like to mention an article
I read in Scientific American about two years ago or so, on our nation's
drug policy and attitude toward drugs, over the past one or two hundred
years.  It came to the conclusion that the best results are obtained when
there is a realistic presentation of the facts, not overstated, not under-
stated, not moralized.  When the bad effects of drugs are exagerrated, or
moralization about drug use is used, it's just not taken very seriously by
a lot of people.  The same goes for sex education.  If you stand in front of
a class of teenagers and preach about the evils of sex before marriage, and
the virtues of abstinence, most of the kids will not take you very seriously
(this applies to a church as well), and you will fail to successfully
encourage either abstinence or safe sex.  Give people the facts, and by and
large things will work out better than if you don't.

  - Dave Borden
    borden@m5.harvard.edu
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh