HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 10 Sep 1992 20:06:16 CDT
From:         Titivillus <T9AA@SDSUMUS.BITNET>
Subject:      re: homosexuality

>>...stuff deleted about Dave's favorite T.V. show

What? I don't remember posting anything about Star Trek on this,
and I've since purged my archives of whatever this said.

>>You don't like homosexuals. Fine. I have no problem with that. You
>>want them to be oppressed. Unless you find a very good argument
>>to defend that, I have a very serious problem with that. So far,
>>your arguments are a kin to the earlier "I don't like them," and
>>that doesn't cut it with me. It may cut it with Pat Buchanan and
>>David Duke, but not with me.

>Don't like homosexuals?  I've never made that statement.  It's also not
>true.  I have a very good relationship with one in particular.  ( no not
>sexual )  I don't see how his lifestyle has anything to do with our
>relationship (currently).

>I *DO* see how it is immoral, but for now that's his dilemma not mine.  I
>*DO* see how as a result of immorality our country is suffering.  I *DO* see
>how his lifestyle could *become* a problem to me/my family.  If he ever took
>the initiative to verbally justify or otherwise defend his lifestyle, to me
>or my child, our relationship would most certainly experience a radical
>change.  You see, I can accept *him* but not his way of life.  The homosexual
>lifestyle was/is/will always be immoral and completely unacceptable.

Well, I guess I can't "justify" my lifestyle and summers to the contrary
I live a very puritan life (anyone who posts as much as I do cannot have
a real life  B).  However, unless someone is doing actual harm, there
needs no justification.

Opressing someone needs justification.

>---Robert

Dave
t9aa@sdsumus.bitnet
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
From: jwales@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (jimmy donal wales)
Subject: Gifted Programs
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 14:06:13 GMT

I liked 'Liese's post.  But will everybody else please SHUT UP about
your gifted school programs!

--Jimbo

p.s. This is as bad as the time everybody suddenly felt compelled to
post their SAT scores.


Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 9 Sep 1992 02:47:56 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: The War Between the Jasons

Hi all:

jamie tells Travis that gender segregated bathrooms aren't a violation
of equal protection because "You have your own bathroom, and it's just
as good."  This fails on 2 counts:
                1) "Separate is inherently unequal."  (Overturned
                   Plessy.  Works with race.  Why not gender?
                2) Men's bathrooms are not "just as good as"
                   women's bathrooms.  Most women's bathrooms are
                   larger and have furniture in them, sometimes even
                   an entire outer area filled with couches and chairs
                   in which one can rest (many here at the University).
                   How many men's bathrooms could be used as small
                   apartments?  (This remark void where the housing
                   authority is on the payroll of the real estate crooks.)

                                              --Missy P 2 B
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 15 Sep 1992 11:36:00 -0400
From:         SPRG0002@TULSAJC.BITNET
Subject:      re: real solutions for real problems

 *** Resending note of 09/15/92 10:30

 >I apologise to the christians on the list but george bush reminds me of
 >a televangelist promising you a spot in the afterlife in exchange for
 >your vote. How many middle class americans can afford a 2,500 a plate
 >dinner? If your wallet isn't thick you don't have a spot on his agenda.
 >fred

 No apology necessary, I don't like him either.  However, $2500.00 per
 plate is cheap compared to what Clinton charged at one of his fund
 raisers.  Our Gov attended a $25,000 per plate fiasco for the demos.

 ---Robert
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 5 Sep 1992 12:14:04 CDT
From:         "The Truth (some assembly required)" <T9AA@SDSUMUS.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: democratic platform/homosexuality

>>      Are you suggesting that AIDS is a homosexual disease?  Did you know
>>   that statistically, heterosexual women are at the highest risk (outside
>>   intravenous drug users) of contracting AIDS?  And that following them
>>   are homosexual men, heterosexual men, and homosexual women?  AIDS IS NOT
>>   A HOMOSEXUAL DISEASE.  I'm sorry, I have to get emphatic -- I may be

>Tell ya' what.  Pick an AIDS case, oh just any one of 'em.  Trace the chain
>ALLLLLLLLLLLL the way back to its origin.  Just what did you find?

A government laboratory?

 ...more nonsense deleted

>---Robert

Dave
t9aa@sdsumus.bitnet
Went to the rocks to hide my face
rock cried out "no hiding place"
 There's no hiding place around here
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 9 Sep 1992 20:10:00 EDT
From:         CMORRISO@SNYESCVA.BITNET
Subject:      Re: The War Between the Jasons

Maybe Falwell represents the majority of those who believe in traditional
moral values without wanting to have to think about them too much, as well
as those who get their religion from TV programs that look like the
product of a funeral director on an acid trip (and a bad one at that).

                                                  Chris Morrison
                                                  CMorriso@snyescva.bitnet
From: 92price@gw.wmich.edu
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: War between the Jasons
Date: 10 Sep 92 12:51:52 EST
Organization: Western Michigan University

ZIMMERJ writes: 
> To be honest, I can't think of a single good reason to oppose restrictions on
> gay marriages that doesn't ultimately have its roots in religion either.  I
> would argue that the state ought to promote basic family-values (not to use an
> overused cliche, or anything) morality, which is why the tax code helps out
> married couples in the first place.  Therefore, lifestyles which don't pass
> moral muster ought not to be encouraged.

If a heterosexual couple which is legally married is somehow _more_ moral than
one that is just "shacking up and living in sin" (Why?  Do marriage vows
somehow create a greater sense of commitment?), then would it also be true that
a homosexual couple which is legally married is _more_ moral than a homosexual
couple that is just "shacking up and living in sin" for the same reasons?  Keep
in mind that my question is not whether you think homosexuality is immoral. 
Also keep in mind that homosexual couples who have made a commitment are just
as monogamous and enduring as hetero couples who have made this commitment (I
don't have any statistics to back up this claim, though).  Then by allowing
homosexuals to get legally married, the state _would_ be "promoting morality." 
And does anyone really believe that by allowing legally-recognized homosexual
marriages, people would be encouraged to become homosexuals?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homophobia is a social disease.                  |             Kai Alexis Price
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sun, 13 Sep 1992 13:43:23 -0700
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: It's always the money

>Read _Cadillac Desert by Marc Reisner - one of the besr=t looks at past,
>current and future water policy around. VMS

I agree.  However, Reisner has changed some of his opinions.  He's
become pro-rice farming.  He's figured out that rice growing merely
borrows water and that artificial wetlands are better than no
wetlands.  Wildfowl agree.

The water wars in CA will come down to cities vs agriculture.  If the
cities win, CA has water for at least 100 million people, but it won't
be pretty.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 15 Sep 1992 08:41:36 BST
From:         Dunstan_Vavasour <dunstan@GEC-EPL.CO.UK>
Subject:      Re: French & EC
Comments: To: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU

Robert:
> Just wondering, what's the current prognosis on the French EC vote?
> Last I heard, the "No" side had the advantage.
>
> ---Robert
>
> "Abortion has saved us from looking at a lot of childish art"

Still too close to call. Mitterand has made the mistake of staking his
political future on it (as has M. Delors), which may tip the balance
to "non". My gut feeling is that they will say "oui", but we may yet
be in luck ...

Dunstan
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 12 Sep 1992 16:49:39 EDT
From:         Brandon Magee <cuz@CHAOS.CS.BRANDEIS.EDU>
Subject:      Re: read my lips: I have family values
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu
              Stephenson" at Sep 11, 92 11:55 pm

In a letter, Presidential Candidate Kerry Stephenson wrote:

| Teacher input is a nice idea, but part of the problem is that the
| majority of a teacher's efforts these days is wrapped up in paperwork.
| Teacher's *don't* have autonomy in the classroom because the
| administrators and the teachers' unions keep telling them how to
| teach, regardless of what works.

	Wow, I finally agree with Missy J. There is much too much time
spent by teachers in paperwork. It seems that many Principals want to
RUN the school as opposed to ADMINISTER the school. Not that the
Teacher's should have ABSOLUTE autonomy, but certain;y they should
have a large measure of autonomy. Of course, I'm fairly biased, my HS
teachers did have a large amount of autonomy, and look where I am. :)

| Teachers who go beyond the call of duty and spend extra time with
| students, *teaching* them should be rewarded and appreciated.  Right
| now, they are just given more administrative and committee work, which
| reduces the amount of time they can actually spend *teaching.*

	True enough. However, I think a major problem is money coming
in. Teacher's now HAVE to do administrative work because it needs to
be done. If teachers didn't do it, who would. This is a bad thing. I
would like to blame Teacher's Unions, but, at least in my areas, they
are being very good and giving up pay raises, cost of living raises,
and in some cases taking cuts. I would like to blame the taxpayers,
who refuse to pass budgets with ANY increases in local budgets from
one year to another, But I know that these people are overburdened
with taxes. So who is to blame? Is there anyone? I doubt that vouchers
will help, since it's just redistributing tax dollars from public
education to private education. Does anyone really have an answer to
the MONEY problem, as opposed to idiolistic problems or competition
problems?

--
 Cousin It                                    cuz@cs.brandeis.edu
    I have opinions of my own - strong opinions - but I don't
         always agree with them    -President George Bush
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: WVNET::IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 11 Sep 1992 15:30:50 -0400
From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Subject:      Re: Response to Kai/values and the Constitution

Hiya, partner.  Really neat post - imho :)

>  3) what virtues (virtues being ways in which one exercises self-control)
>     are necessary for the governance of a free people?

>The values question is not a frivolous sidelight to the "real issues."
>It *contains* the real issues.  However, because it deals with the
>question of self-control versus self-expression, it appears to be
>trivial to an entertainment industry that assumes that the revolution
>is over and self-expression won.

>We can, certainly, determine as a nation to trade self-control for
>self-expression.  But if we do, we enter into yet another experiment
>in governance.  Because the Constitution and the system the Founders
>devised was not meant for such a people.

What, exactly, constitute self-control and self-expression?  I mean, I can
easily conceive of "I will not proselytize or attempt to enshrine my
religious beliefs in law" as an exercise in self-control and its converse
as self-expression.  But I don't think that's what you meant :)

I ask because I'm still struggling with the question of where the public
sphere of virtue (that is, virtue encoded into law) and the private sphere
of virtue (virtues that I can choose or not choose for myself with no legal
consequences) separate.  Or should they be separate?

Sorry if that doesn't make much sense -- whatever you call this general
topic, it ain't my strong suit :)

Thanks!
Kerry
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
From: jwales@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (jimmy donal wales)
Subject: Re: Bad v. Harmful
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 11:28:39 GMT

K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU> writes:

>Without getting theoretical -- not that I can -- it seems to me that
>one can easily define harmful without the knowledge of whether it
>is bad but the reverse is not always easily done.

?

Just for the record, I equate the two.  Harmful, bad.  Bad, harmful.
Additional questions that must be answered, though: of harm to whom?
bad for whom?

I don't see how something harmless could be bad.  And I don't see
how anything bad could be harmless.

What's the difference?

--Jimbo


Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 5 Sep 1992 00:10:19 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: homosexuality

brni:

You have it backwards.  Bad comes first.  Bad things *tend to be* harmful
(as we perceive them; they *are* harmful, even when we cannot yet see the
harm).  But they are not bad because they cause harm; they cause harm
BECAUSE they are bad.

Try this.  Let's say I have an affair.  I do so, believing (as does my
lover of unspecified gender and species--just to make you aversion
theorists happy) that my husband is not harmed by it.  I have no reason
to believe that he is harmed by it, since such a thing does not occur to
me as something that could conceivably cause harm.  I also believe that
my children (children by choice, just to keep things all up to date),
being smart little things, are not harmed by it either.
   My children are quite fond of my lover, and at some point they also
begin to have sex with this person (oh, what the heck--let's throw in
the dog, the cat, a few gerbils, and some power tools while we are at
it.)  My husband, however, is, unbeknownst to me, unhappy with the
situation.  In fact, he is so unhappy that his work begins to suffer.
Eventually, he kills himself.  When my children grow up (like they
haven't already), they cannot seem to be happy either.  Why might
this be?  We assume that they are unhappy because they are not
diverting themselves enough, so we encourage them to medicate them-
selves (legally or illegally, it makes little difference.)  Long
after they have been institutionalized, I learn from their friends that
they were tremendously traumatized by the situations I put them in (me?
I was just doing what I wanted to do!  No one was being hurt!)
  My children hate me, their friends hate me for destroying their lives,
my lover hates me because my children are so depressing, and I hate them
all for blaming their problems on me.  All *I* was doing was living my
life the way I wanted to without hurting anyone.
  No.  What I was doing was ignoring that what I was doing was BAD,
regardless of whether there was a direct, perciptible harm involved or
NOT.  Because I had NO MORAL VALUES.  And, to be perfectly frank, I
deserved *exactly* what I got.

--Missy P 2 B
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
From: holzman@fnalno.fnal.gov (Daniel B. Holzman)
Subject: Re:      re: pot and the kettle
Organization: Fermi National Accelerator Lab
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 19:16:36 GMT
X-Posted-From: fnalno.fnal.gov
X-Posted-Through: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <POLITICS%92090816001022@OHSTVMA.IRCC.OHIO-STATE.EDU>,         
"Robert sprg0002@tulsajc.bitnet" <SPRG0002@TULSAJC.BITNET> writes:
>  >From Daniel B. Holzman
>  >Then you disqualify yourself from adopting, as bigotry is wrong and
>  >unacceptable.
> 
>  Oh Danny Boy,
> 
>  If you are claiming that I am somewhat intolerant of attempts to justify
>  or excuse homosexuality, I agree.  If you are claiming that I am unwilling
>  to listen to faulty reasoning in those attempts, I again agree.
> 
>  Does that make me a bigot?  I think not.  Surely, you are not foolish enough
>  to consider "reasons" for justification of bank robbery.  I wouldn't say that
>  makes you a bigot.  On the contrary, it reflects wisdom.  In a roundabout 
>  way, you've paid me quite a compliment.

Bobby dear,

It is your equating homosexuality with bank robbery which makes you a bigot.
-- 
Daniel B. Holzman                    | Eight Words the Witch's Rede Fufill:
HOLZMAN@FNAL.BITNET                  | An It Harm None, Do What You Will
HOLZMAN@FNALC.FNAL.GOV.INTERNET      |
                                     | All Acts of Love and Pleasure are
Love doesn't subtract,               | Her Rituals
   it multiplies    - Heinlein       |
                                     | Speak the Word.
Disclaimer:  Fermilab's far too large to have an opinion, let alone mine.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 5 Sep 1992 22:12:50 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Rights, and other comments ...

Someone has suggested that we should change the voting process so that
people *want* to vote.

How?  Someone suggested better candidates.  I don't think that is really
the problem.  Admittedly, the candidates are, generally....well....
um....not terrific.  But people who don't vote don't necessarily
not vote because the candidates aren't good.  Even people who don't
much like the candidates tend to vote, just to vote "against" the
*really* bad one.

I don't think you could get people to want to vote unless you offered
them free beer and pizza.  Even then, some wouldn't bother.

But maybe if you could combine ballots with lottery tickets.....

Stereos!  TVs!  New Cars!  HUGE Cash Prizes!!!!

Vote early, vote often!

Well, maybe.  (Something similar used to work in Chicago.)

--Missy P 2 B
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: WVNET::IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 11 Sep 1992 08:18:15 -0400
From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Subject:      Re: read my lips: I have family values

MacPhil:
>>So that kind of leaves the question of should poorer families have the
>>opportunity to attend private schools.  Um, sure.  I *still* don't see how
>>$1K per child (for families earning under $40K -- I think --) is really
>>going to help "poorer" families.  Unless "poorer" means richer than I am :)
>
>I'm not sure I have an answer for that one, but I'm still curious about
>how vouchers in general seem to favour the rich as you asserted, regardless
>of the amount...

Actually, KAT asserted that, not me :)  For what it's worth, the "GI Bill"
Bush proposed did, I hear, have a "means test" -- and I recall hearing that
the cut-off for eligibility would be in the $40K range.  Seems pretty
reasonable to me to think that folks in the upper part of the eligible
income range would have a better chance of actually using the vouchers for
their stated purpose than would folks in the low end.

Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 10 Sep 1992 17:19:00 EDT
From:         rf35 <Richard_A_FYFE@UMAIL.UMD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Is homosexuality immoral?
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>

Greetings:

> I can believe that homosexuality is moral or immoral depending
> on which logical route I take in deciding, and by accepting or
> rejecting different propositions I can reach different con-
> clusions.

        Actually, believing it is one or the other is not prob-
lematic.  The problem is believing that it is one AND the other
(which continues to be a problem even when the two people with
the different beliefs are themselves different people).

> Now suppose someone reaches a different conclusion and says
> that bestiality and cannibalism are all right?  This is a
> reasonable question.  But I think it is desirable to allow for
> as much room for diversity and individual growth as possible.

        You write as if this is inconsistent with what came
before.  It is not.  Let us return to the original question--
concerning the moral status of homosexual acts.  One can draw
three possible conclusions--that they are immoral, permissible,
or obligatory.  One does not have to conclude either that every-
body ought to perform a certain activity or nobody, one can
allow that whether to engage in some activity depends upon non-
moral considerations.  Homosexual acts fall into the middle
category--neither morally required or morally prohibited.  Even
a heterosexual is morally free to engage in homosexual acts; the
fact that she may not wish to or that other concerns give her
reason against doing so does not contradict there being a moral
permission to do so.

        There is a great deal of justification for diversity.
Diversity allows for less competition for goods; in a world
that contains X and Y in limited supply, it is better that some
people like X and others like Y then that all like either X or
Y.  Second, it allows for division of labor without sacrifice.
There is reason to want some people to like being a firefighter,
others to want to become doctors, still others to become teach-
ers, etc..  Nature also creates diversity in members of any
species (and, approximately, for the same reasons--because of
the advantages of being different).  Given that there is no
human nature but, instead, a diverse set of natures which are
arbitrarily lumped together, there are reasons not to require or
expect uniformity in lifestyles.

>  After all, when you decide that people are wrong or evil, what
> do you do with them?  If they aren's an actual threat, they
> should be left alone and given common consideration.

        Though it is logically possible that somebody can be evil
without being a threat to another, it is not in fact the case.
Moral wrongness requires being a threat to others.

                                   Richard A. Fyfe
                                   rf35@umail.umd.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU