HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gsmith@lauren.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de (Gene W. Smith)
Subject: Re: Sexuality
Organization: IWR, University of Heidelberg, Germany
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 93 19:01:10 GMT

In article <C03wCz.7K2@NeoSoft.com> jpsb@NeoSoft.com (Jim Shirreffs)
writes: >In article <1992Dec30.194545.8342@asl.dl.nec.com>
dillhoff@aslws01.asl.dl.nec.com (Doug Dillhoff) writes:

>I'm a little out of date on the science of sexuality, but when I was young
>the social scientists claimed that one early sexual experiences had an
>inordinate amount of influence on the eventual sexual orientation of an
>indivual. In short if someone as a child had homosexual experiences then
>they were more likely to grow to be a homosexual. Now I don't know if this is
>true, but when I was young it was accepted as scientific fact.

When I was young it was accepted as a scientific fact that humans had
48 chromosomes, and that Mercury always pointed one side to the Sun,
like the Moon does to the Earth.  It was accepted as scientific fact
that continental drift was a crackpot theory, and that the idea that
dinosaurs went extinct because of a catastrophic event was demonstrably
false.  It was accepted as scientific fact that protons were
elementary particles, not composed of anything simpler, and that
conservation of baryon number meant that a proton could never decay.

Some of these things are now doubted, and others have been proven to
be false.  To make an argument based on science, we need to know the
science, not vaguely recall what we thought we learned when we were
young.

It also helps to keep in mind that some things really are facts. For
instance, that some animals engage in homosexual behavior, and anal
and oral sex, is not a theory, unlike my examples of baryon number or
continental drift.  It is also not the sort of observation which is
likely to have been done incorrectly (unlike my examples of
chromosomes and Mercury.)  It is just a fact.




-- 
     Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/IWR/Ruprecht-Karls University 
               gsmith@kalliope.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: wgb3@pyuxf.uucp (25336-buoni)
Subject: Re: using the bible to advance bigotry
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 93 21:30:03 GMT

From porthos!walter!uunet!caen!nic.umass.edu!news.amherst.edu!twpierce Tue Jan 12 16:28:51 EST 1993

In article <1993Jan12.183800.662@porthos.cc.bellcore.com> wgb3@pyuxf.uucp (25336-buoni) writes:

>>What hatred?  I don't hate gays.  I just don't accept that lifestyle as being
>>valid for my family.  I also dislike pornography, beastiality and jumping from
>>partner to partner, and believe none of these should be presented to my 
>>children while they are at school.  

>If you refuse to consider that "lifestyle" to be "valid," you're going
>to have a hell of a lot of explaining to do if your family decides to
>accept it as valid, since there's not a thing you can do to prevent
>it.

I don't understand this?  Who would I explain to?  My wife and I have similar
positions on this matter.  If one of my sons decides to pursue this lifestyle
he is free to do so, as long as he is not doing so under my roof.  I will love
him no less, no more.  

If my son is not gay but simply holds a different set of views, say around 15
to 16 years of age, I will discuss them with him.  I will let him know where
we stand and what type of behavior is acceptable in our house.  It is really 
that simple.

-- 
>____ Tim Pierce                / 
>\  / twpierce@unix.amherst.edu /               Rocks say goodbye.
> \/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) / 

Bill Buoni
my opinions are my own and do not represent those of my employer!
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: young@ssdd475a.erim.org (Peter Young)
Subject: Re: Lifestyle Choices (was  Re: Sexuality)
In-reply-to: jon@Turing.ORG's message of Mon, 4 Jan 1993 20:43:14 GMT
Organization: Environmental Research Institute of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
	<1992Dec30.210630.19156@galileo.physics.arizona.edu>
	<1993Jan4.194233.8290@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>
	<1993Jan4.204314.19257@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
Date: 8 Jan 93 12:34:13

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

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

By enlarged (I love that phrase) it itsn't.
--
Peter Young
young@erim.org
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: stank@perrault.unet.com (Stan Knight)
Subject: Re: Sexuality
Organization: Network Equipment Technologies, Redwood City
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 21:15:16 GMT

In article <1i003kINNf0j@hp-col.col.hp.com> smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes:
>stank@perrault.unet.com (Stan Knight) writes:
>>  For many
>> sex and morality seem to be one. 

>Not exactly "one", but linked together by the sanctity of life, and the 
>way life is created. 

Yes but what does this have to do with consenting adults enjoying the act of
having sex? What you say, at least implies, that unless there is an attempt
to create life then sex is immoral.

>> It has also become clear that this always 
>> stems from a single thought. That being that sex is a bad, dirty thing that is
>> unfortunitly necessary for keeping the race going. 
>
>Not exactly, see above.  I see nothing inherintly 'dirty' about sex, nor do 
>most people I know...there's always a few, but that doesn't make it the typical 
>view.  It *is* neccesary to keep the race going.  

Correct me if I'm wrong here Walter but your entire position seems to be that
sex, unless done under the rules that you put forth, IS dirty, immoral or
[insert you're own term for something bad here].

>> I would agree that if sex
>> is forced or is used to manipulate then that is a bad thing but I have a real
>> hard time beleiving that sex between consenting adults can be immoral.

>I have sex with my neighbor's wife; we've both consented to it with 
>each other, no one's twisting my arm or hers; immoral? 

I would consider it immoral if either of you broke your vows to your spouse.
If no vows were broken but you lied to your spouse(I didn't touch her honey)
then it is immoral. If there is consent of all 4 members then how could it
be immoral? other then the fact that sex was had outside of wedlock. And that
takes us back to sex being a dirty thing unless had under very strict rules.

>> Most
>> think that the CHURCH(tm)has always had the same docturne concering sex as
>> it does today. The current docturne has been in place for about 400 years.
>> BUT previous to that the docturne was that sex was a gift from GOD that 
>> should be enjoyed *responsible*. 

>Hmmmm...that's what I thought it still was; enjoyed responsibly between 
>married people.  Maybe I slept thru 400 years?  Could be....might explain 
>some of my archaic, outdated views on things?  :-)  Maybe..

I didn't say between married people! The church(actually the Catholic church)
didn't insist on marriage before sex intil about 400 years ago. 

>> Stan Knight
>> |If sex is sooo bad why did GOD make it feal soooo good?|

>Cocaine makes people feel real good.  Is it good?  And typical people 
>don't think sex is 'bad', only when it is misused. 

As stated before I agree with you here. If sex is misused then that's a bad
thing. However I can't see why the only way NOT to misuse sex is between a
man and woman who have gone through a ceremony and are trying to make a baby.

>Walter

Stan Knight
|Have had sex with many---all enjoyed it none hurt|
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle)
Subject: Re: Borgy Boy's squeals
Organization: Psych Department, Indiana University
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 21:34:23 GMT

psg+@pitt.edu (Paul S Galvanek) writes:
>popec@unkaphaed.gbdata.com (William C. Barwell) writes:
>> And every day when you turn on the tube, or open the papers, 
>>there you will see the smiling face of Slick Willy.  Too bad you hate 'em 
>>sooo much. 

>Don't kid yourself little man, four years of Clinton and we'll be lucky if
>there's a country left to run.  

[long vitriolic diatribe snipped]

>Buckle up tight, cause your pussy whipped sissy of a prez and his 43 % 
>minority have put this country on a course for one hell of a bumpy ride.  
>And I for one will do my part to see to he fails as miserably as the last 
>sniveling-crybaby-got-no-backbone Democrat we drove out of office. 

    Gosh. You guys have both expressed the views of your respective 
parties so adroitly that I just don't know who to believe (neither 
probably).

--
Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
Psychology Department               Indiana University
nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: snodgras@lclark.edu (Bil Snodgrass)
Subject: Re: Chelsea's school ...
Organization: Lewis & Clark College, Portland OR
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 14:35:12 GMT

In article <-y!388#@rpi.edu> root@june.cmp.rpi.edu (J.R. Ordon) writes:
>In article <1ij20hINNkhm@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu> rww@mugwump.cl.msu.edu (Richard W. Wiggins) writes:
>>In article <5066@execu.execu.com> mike@execu.execu.com (Mike McCants) writes:
>> The point is that Clinton is rich
>>> enough to be able to make a choice, but he does not support money
>>> for school vouchers to allow less rich people to make such a choice.

First of all you don't have to be rich to go to a public school.  In
San Antonio, private Catholic Schools are still huming along and 
there are many people out there with small incomes who work hard to put their
children through the private schools.......

Vouchers are an attempt to segragate......

The problem with education are parents.....it is clear and simple...
Parents who will not devote time to help their children with their 
reading lessons or teach their children about sex or about how
to drive a car......We have a bunch of no good parents out there folks.



>
>I guess you see no inconsistency between avoiding Military service by
>dodging the draft, and sending soldiers off to die as Commander and Chief.


Nope.... I mean Quale dodged the draft with the help of his father...
and people put him into the office.  

>
>---------------------------------
>J.R. Ordon


Bil Snodgrass III
From: dbernard@clesun.Central.Sun.COM (Dave Bernard)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Jesse Jackson's Bigotry
Date: 5 Jan 1993 12:51:40 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems
Distribution: world
Reply-To: dbernard@clesun.Central.Sun.COM
NNTP-Posting-Host: clesun.central.sun.com

Jim Graham writes:

>The irony of Jesse Jackson, to me, is that he claims to be a "reverend".

>Hogwash.  Nobody that deliberately causes divisions can be considered
>a peace-maker by any stretch of the imagination.

>White, or black.

I understand that Jackson is an ordained minister, but is he a practicing one?
Has he had a regular congregation in the last 20 years, one in which he knows
many of the common faithful on a personal basis, having attended their births,
baptisms, funerals, having consoled families on their losses or confusion?  If not,
exactly what does he do for a living?



Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:13253 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:11849 alt.politics.clinton:19813 alt.politics.bush:15674 alt.politics.homosexuality:9150
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 21:11:39 GMT
Organization: Colorado Springs IT Center
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: fajita19.cs.itc.hp.com

Jody, 

Can you put your email address in your signature?  My news reader only 
gets your name from the headings in your posts. 

Walter

Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: judi@wam.umd.edu (Jay T Stein -- Clap on, Clap off)
Subject: Re: Kicked out of a.f.d-q?  I don't think so
Originator: judi@rac1.wam.umd.edu
Organization: The Bedrock Royal Order of Water Buffaloes
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 07:00:04 GMT

[I'm sure nobody really cares about this, but I see garbage from dsh, and I
 feel compelled to respond.  'n' away if you aren't interested.]

What: <1992Dec28.051013.24692@ncsu.edu>
Who:  dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)

>> = sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:

>> Sigh.  I don't think that forging articles is a "harmless joke."

>It hasn't been demonstrated that Steve Chaney's article
>was indeed a 'forgery'.  He never intended to deceive 
>anyone about the source of the article, hence no
>'forgery' existed.

Doug, you keep saying this, as if intent to deceive were part of the
definition.  You're wrong, and it is not part of the definition.  Webster's
9th New Collegiate defines 'forgery' (first, mind you) as the false
alteration of a document.  On this basis alone, Steve Chaney's article
was a forgery.

Secondly, threaded newsreaders index articles according to the From: line,
and follow-up and mail reply software uses the From: line to determine the
address.  Whether or not he intended to deceive anybody through the whole
article is irrlevant - the headers were forged, simple as that.

Given Steve's Usenet reputation for abuse of both protocol and common
decency, I don't consider Susan's action unreasonable.

I do, however, find your apologist defense of Steve Chaney fitting.  I
wouldn't be surprised if you find all of his infantile blabbering about
Patrick Humphrey's wife "high humor."

> I think you complained about his 
>posting so that he would be punished.

Your point?  If someone forged my name in a header without my permission
I'd want them punished too.

>> I was told that it was CMU policy to report any forgeries of a CMU address, 
>> regardless of the circumstances.  [...]
>
>How hard would it have been to simply ignore the article?

Who are you to tell someone they should have looked the other way?

>> They informed me that they were reporting it, that they didn't find
>> the joke to be funny, and that they doubted that the CSUS sysadmins
>> would find it funny, either.  
>
>And I bet you got a big laugh out of it, knowing that Mr. Chaney
>might be punished, huh?  

It just burns you up that he shoots himself in the foot, doesn't it.
Perhaps you feel vicariously shot in the foot as well.

--JT in DC ... who really enjoyed your .plan.  Childish, and completely
               in character.
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:13659 talk.abortion:55341 alt.sex:41786
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion,alt.sex
Subject: Ted Admits that Heterosexuality is about Murder
Keywords: abortion
Date: 12 Jan 93 10:45:10 GMT
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper

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.
] 
] Ted


Thanks Ted.

And we also know that one of the leading cause of
death for women has been gestational Complications.

Hence it follows that when a women engages in Sex
she has hung a sign out saying "Kill Me Please."


ciao
drieux


ps: I am so pleased that some folks are such stauch
supporters of the Mandate to OutLaw Heterosexuality.


-- 
MajorModernDayProblems: 

"Let's Get Digital, Digital"
	Olivia Newton TheHideousMachOSFKonspirakii
From: johna@psdcae1.gvg.tek.com (John Abt)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Chelsea's school ...
Keywords: school choice, hypocrisy
Date: 11 Jan 93 05:59:50 GMT
Organization: Grass Valley Group, Grass Valley, CA

If school choice is such a great idea, then I want defense choice.
Yeah, I'll take the 30% (or whatever) off my Federal income tax
and defend my family myself, thank you.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: Mark.Perew@p201.f208.n103.z1.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Sex Education in Public Schools
X-Sender: newtout 0.06 Jan  3 1993
Date: 11 Jan 93  11:45:25

In a message of <Jan 06 08:22>, krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted
Krueger) writes:

 >The following four books are used in many public school 
 >districts.

What grade levels are these books intended for use in?

(Not that it matters, but I'd like to know.)

--- Mark Perew  Mark.Perew@ofa123.fidonet.org
--- Mark's Information Repository and Funtime Emporium (1:103/208.201)


--- Squish v1.00
From: libwca@emory.edu (Bill Anderson)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Education Regarding Alternative Family Units (Re: The Analogy Betwixt Gays & Blacks (Re: Children in Samegender Families))
Date: 6 Jan 93 16:59:53 GMT
Organization: Emory University, Atlanta, GA
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3

psg+@pitt.edu (Paul S Galvanek) writes:
: 
: Can you show me just one example of social engineering at this level has
: ever been successful?
: 
: 
: Paul

Yeah, as a matter of fact.  After WWII, the American military
"engineered" Japanese society extensively, to the point of 
deposing god himself.  They dismantled what was essentially
a feudal culture and replaced it with modern corporate
capitalism, and disassembled the most dedicated military in
the world.  Now Japan is peaceful, capitalistic and largely
secular.

I don't know that this has any implications at all for the 
topic at hand, but you did ask for an example.

Bill
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: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 21:09:51 GMT

mike@execu.execu.com (Mike McCants) writes:
>Nathan Engle writes:
>>    No, I'm talking about lots of teachers who can barely tolerate the 
>>NEA any more because of its condescending attitude towards them. My Mom 
>>is one of them.

>What is her solution for the public schools' problems?

    I don't think that she's had time to write a policy statement, nor 
to grapple with the down-and-dirty conditions in the inner cities. Mom 
teaches 3rd grade, and it seems like her personal plan is just to go 
into the classroom every day and work her students as hard as she can - 
multiplication tables, reading, spelling, and a little science. She gets 
kids with 12 minute attention spans and does what she can to be more 
interesting than what the kids saw last night on _Funniest_Home_Videos_.

    In addition to her own class she's also been working with the 6th 
graders since one time a couple years back when the entire 6th grade 
graduating class placed at the remedial level when they got to junior 
high. Since she started coaching them, subsequent classes of 6th graders 
have placed much higher than average.

    That's her solution. Just do it. One kid at a time. That's why I'm so 
adamant that some parts of the public system are working very well. Mom's 
students carry away a great deal from having had her as a teacher. Please 
don't sabotage her hard work in your hurry to shut down the "rat pits and 
cesspools".

--
Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
Psychology Department               Indiana University
nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:13250 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:11848 alt.politics.clinton:19811 alt.politics.bush:15673 alt.politics.homosexuality:9149
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: Why the "argument from Nature" matters
Date: 7 Jan 1993 21:04:24 GMT
Organization: Colorado Springs IT Center
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: fajita19.cs.itc.hp.com

rj24@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Robert  Johnston) writes:
> Wally, would you get a clue already!

Robert, either you're just *dying* for an excuse to flame, or 
you just don't read very well.  You wrote: 

> Even more extra points if you show why your opinion should be law
> of the land:

Which shows that you have not the slightest notion of what 
my position on this sort of thing is, even though I've 
posted it over and over.  Frankly, I have better things to 
do with my time than to respond furthur to this sort of 
thing. 

Walter
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:13483 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:12075 alt.politics.clinton:19969 alt.politics.bush:15760 alt.politics.homosexuality:9253
From: smithmc@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Lost Boy)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: God is intolerant of sin!
Date: 9 Jan 93 21:32:46 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center

In article <C0DG7p.6E3@world.std.com> entropy@world.std.com (The Entropic one) writes:
>In article <dlhanson.27.726175240@nap.amoco.com> dlhanson@nap.amoco.com (David L. Hanson) writes:
>>>
>>Some forget that God is intolerant of sin; He is a God of love AND
>>JUSTICE. More of the Lord Jesus Christ's words follow: 
>
> [More Bible quotes deleted for space; sorry Dave.]
>
>So where does Jesus say anything about Homosexuality? 

That's the funny thing. Jesus doesn't say a single word about homosexuality
or abortion in the entire NT. All the anti-Gay quotes I hear are from the
OT and from the letters and speaches of the APOSTLES. I'm not really big on
the theory that the apostles knew the word of the Lord God better than  Jesus
did. After all, the apostles were as human and feeble as any of us. They made
mistakes.

QUestion for the day:
If Jesus were alive today, would he be anti- or pro-gay-rights?  


>------  Linux, Religion, and electronic shopping all in one place!
>\    / Repent of Bean eating, MS-DOS, OS/2, and windows NT, no sales man
> \  / will hassle you, no priest will sacrifice you. Free 9600 baud download.
>  \/ Call the Virtual World Information Systems BBS at 508-793-9568        


Lost Boy

************************************************************
* "Who would you die on the cross for?"         -Karen Uru *
************************************************************
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
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 06:36:22 GMT

In article <1993Jan6.222856.27434@anasazi.com> briand@anasazi.com (Brian Douglass) writes:
>We need the ability to prohibit discrimination whatever the basis except in
>the extraordinary situations, which the courts would eventually dilineate
>as they have done with laws prohibiting A&B, murder, free-speech, etc.
>
>
>
>-- 
>"The best government of all is that government which governs the least."
>	Jefferson
>Brian Douglass		briand@anasazi.com 	602-870-3330 X657

Your above statement appears inconsistent with your .sig.  BTW, what do
you mean prevent discrimination on any basis?  So, if I am hiring someone
to be a scientist, I can't discriminate against people who are less intelligent?

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	-
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:13531 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:12129 alt.politics.clinton:20006 alt.politics.bush:15779 alt.politics.homosexuality:9300