HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Berserk Sex Maniacs (was  Re: Lifestyle Choices)
Date: 6 Jan 93 21:12:06 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson AZ

In article <1993Jan6.161506.7349@news.eng.convex.com> foster@convex.COM (Harry Foster) writes:
>smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes:
>>
>>glen@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Glen Sonnenberg) writes:
>>> I saw a show on PBS that showed an example of gang rape in a certain species
>>> of whales.  Three whales trap a female and each take turns having sex with
>>> her.  Does this mean that we should accept gang rape "because it is seen
>>> in nature"?
>>
>>Yeah, ever see ducks?  Go to your local duck pond in the spring...the males 
>>tend to gang up on and nearly drown the females...
>>
>
>Fascinating!  One can only conclude that all male heterosexuals are 
>berserk sex maniacs unable to control their behavior . . .

Jeez!  How 'bout if we simply agree that humans cannot learn morals from 
watching animals?

Ted


-- 
So the Maples formed a union, and demanded equal rights, "The Oaks are just 
too greedy.  We will make them give us light!"  Now there's no more Oak 
oppression, for they passed a noble law.  And the trees are all kept equal, 
by hatchet, axe and saw.     -  Rush, The Trees
From: dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Colorado Amendment2 Query
Date: 5 Jan 93 21:33:49 GMT
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder CO

In article <105120037@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM> patm@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Pat Murphy) writes:
>
>
>	i think alot of the talk/argument/inane babblings on
>	amendment 2 seem to shift to the extreme ends of the
>	spectrum (much the same manner as the abortion *debate*).
>
>	personally, i find amendment 2 rather ridiculous in that
>	it focuses on one particular group-- homosexuals-- and
>	says these people can't have *special rights*  this tends
>	to paint the supporters of amd_2 as gay-haters...  if they
>	were concerned w/ *special rights* why didn't the amendment
>	simply ban *special rights* for everybody??
>
>
>pjm.

What the amendment does, of course, is ban laws that prevent
discrimination against homosexuals, leaving such protection up
to much more vague constitutional language.  The Supreme Court,
which has upheld rights to privacy (also vague),
has already stated that homosexual activity, such as sodomy,
is not protected.  Therefore, it seems questionable as to
whether the consitution can be relied on to provide any
protection from discrimination for homosexuals.  Liberals and
conservatives may interpret the 14th amendment as they like,
but the Supreme Court is what counts.  The ability to clarify
this protection in local or state statutes has now been outlawed.
so it seems unlikely that it would 
-- 
==============================================================================
	Dean Myerson			dean@vexcel.com
==============================================================================
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: dash@skyy.b30.ingr.com (new user)
Subject: Re: Chelsea's school ...
Reply-To: dash@skyy.b30.ingr.com
Organization: Intergraph
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 18:53:41 GMT

In article <5066@execu.execu.com>, mike@execu.execu.com (Mike McCants) writes:
|> In article Nathan Engle writes:
|> 
|> >    What the Clintons are doing for their daughter is only hypocritical 
|> >if you accept the initial Rush-thought that Democrats always have to act 
|> >based solely on symbolism and that not doing so contradicts their stated 
|> >goals.
|> 
|> (As usual?) You've got it backwards.  Clinton is NOT being criticized
|> for acting rationally.  Rush never claimed "that Democrats always have
|> to act based solely on symbolism".   The point is that Clinton is rich
|> enough to be able to make a choice, but he does not support money
      (WITH HIS OWN MONEY.)
|> for school vouchers to allow less rich people to make such a choice.
       (WITH TAX PAYER MONEY)
|> 
|> The question is:  would both public and private schools and their
|> students be better off if money (say $2000) in the form of government
|> vouchers were avaliable to someone of modest income (say <$30000)
|> to move their child from a public school to a private one?

Soooooo. While we are at it, I have a modest income less than say $30,000.
I don't like public transportation either.  Give me a oh say a $2000 voucher
so I can get a car,  (Just like Clinton got a car, why can't I have one. He
obviously doesn't support the idea of less rich people making such a choice
as car buying)

I hate having to ride the bus, with all the street people, thugs etc...

Look.  If you get taxpayer money in the form of vouchers accepted by
private (religious) schools, then they should also abide by government 
(and supreme court decisions) regarding school prayer. Don't like them
apples, then don't accept vouchers.....

                                O.P.P
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari)
Subject: Re: Lifestyle Choices (was  Re: Sexuality)
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 21:36:24 GMT

In article <1993Jan4.211232.15876@wam.umd.edu> aap@wam.umd.edu (Alberto Adolfo Pinkas) writes:
>In article <1993Jan4.194233.8290@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> tip@lead.aichem.arizona.edu (Tom Perigrin) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec30.210630.19156@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
>>>
>>>>Since homosexuality is found in *every* mammalian species, 
>>>
>>>Source please.
>>>
>>>Ted
>>
>>When I was in junior high school debating class I found that trick to be
>>very useful, especially when I didn't have a good rational arguement
>>with which to respond.
>
>
>It would be interesting to point out that we can find incest in *every*
>mammalian species other than human biengs.
>And, also, that there is no age of consent among all
>other mammalian species.


	Not to mention cannibalism.


	Oh, yeah, lots and lots of violence.


-- 
      Blaming "society" for your problems is like blaming clouds for rain.
 ---  boycott == coercion == censorship == closed mindedness == cowardice  ---
	      "Psalms 23:1  The LORD is my shepherd; I shall not want."  
		Shepherds are for sheep.   -----      Pain teaches.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.correct
From: frank@westford.ccur.com (Frank Tredeau)
Subject: Re: "My Cabinet" by Clinton (was Re: Affirmative action is dead)
Organization: Concurrent Computer Corp.  Westford, MA
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 18:12:51 GMT

In article <1993Jan03.033540.2412@microsoft.com> bobsarv@microsoft.com (Bob Sarver) writes:
>/(ssc)
>/No, only the politically correct ones.
>What politically incorrect minorities would you propose?

Well, how about Republicans?

Frank Tredeau                      Concurrent Computer Corp.
             sez me
From: bob@hobbes.dtcc.edu (Bob Rahe)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: "One Nation, Indivisible"
Date: 8 Jan 1993 20:04:02 GMT
Organization: Delaware Technical & Community College
NNTP-Posting-Host: hobbes.dtcc.edu

In article <JLD3wB6w165w@unkaphaed.gbdata.com> popec@unkaphaed.gbdata.com (William C. Barwell) writes:

>Somebody once asked Benjamin Franklin what he thought the motto of our 
>country should be. Franklin answered that it should be, "Mind Your Own 
>Business".  I think we should cahnge the motto "In God We Trust" to 
>Franklin's motto.    

  I would go along with that ONLY if the country would then actually
FOLLOW that motto!  It certainly isn't following it now, nor is it following
its current motto.....   ;-(
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Bob Rahe, Delaware Tech&Comm College | AIDS, Drugs, Abortion: -        |
|Internet: bob@hobbes.dtcc.edu        |  - Don't liberals just kill you?|
|CI$: 72406,525 Genie:BOB.RAHE        |Save whales; and kill babies?    |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:13540 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:12143 alt.politics.homosexuality:9306
From: cwagner@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Christian Wagner)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Sexuality
Date: 9 Jan 93 18:10:35 GMT
Followup-To: alt.rush-limbaugh
Distribution: usa
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin TX

In article <dlhanson.31.726451977@nap.amoco.com> dlhanson@nap.amoco.com (David L. Hanson) writes:
>I too have read studies (I don't have the sources, sorry) that show that
>drug education programs (such as DARE) increase drug use, and sex education
>programs increases fornication.

<AHEM?> 'Fornication'? I don't know about you, but I've had quite a bit of sex
in my life, and I haven't -once- 'fornicated'. Tell me, is this some kind of
strange pseudo-Christian form of sex? Is it in the alt.sex.bondage FAQ?

And, please, show us these studies. Along with statistics of teen pregnancy
and STD rates in parochial schools.

 IF parents taught their children
>moral values instead of heathen relativism AND IF the parents shelter their
>children, there wouldn't be a problem to talk about.

Shelter our children? Ah, the 'ignorance is bliss' argument......

I've got news for you. I, as a child, was taught about human sexuality at a 
very early age. I've grown up sexually well-adjusted, without any of the 
strange hang-ups you obviously have; I lost my virginity at 15, to a girl I was
quite in love with, and haven't made anyone pregnant or ended up with any 
STD's. Why? Because I -knew- the facts, and I wasn't afraid to deal with the
real world. 

On the other hand, friends of mine who grew up in pseudo-Christian households
where 'sex' was never talked about, ended up with STDs, pregnant girlfriends,
and sexual hang-ups that would make Freud blush. Why? Because they didn't know
what they were doing, and had always thought of sex as 'bad' or 'dirty'. 

(Oh, and BTW, thanks. I hadn't seen anything quite as amusing as 'heathan 
relativism' in a -long- time. :> )

  It is just that a
>large number of people don't get the connection between sin and its 
>consequences.  Adult examples of the kind of seared consciences this kind of
>child rearing produces are becoming more and more common it seems. 

The 'connection' is not between sin and consquences, it's between ignorance and
accidental pregancy/STDs. The amount of raw disinformation that most teenagers
spread amongst each other about sex is -immense-, due to a lack of education on
the subject, a lack of education almost directly linked to people like you.

And I wonder how much sexual education -you- have, too...... Feel like taking a
quiz?

-- 
    "Well, do you ever get the feeling that the Story's too damn real
                        and in the present tense?"
               Christian Wagner - cwagner@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu 
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:12919 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:11412 alt.politics.clinton:19548 alt.politics.bush:15455 alt.politics.homosexuality:8889
From: greg_bradt@msmgate.mrg.uswest.com (Greg Bradt aka The Lensman)
Subject: Re: Protection for homosexuals *is* valid (Was "Colorado Amendment2 Query")
XXXDate: Fri, 8 Jan 93 19:25:56 GMT
XUserAgent: Nuntius v1.1.1d16
XXXMessageID: <A773235403010614@greg_bradt.mrg.uswest.com>
Organization: US West Marketing Resources
NntpPostingHost: greg_bradt.mrg.uswest.com
Date: 08 Jan 93 19:26:38 GMT

In article <1993Jan8.063912.1544@leland.Stanford.EDU> Godfather of Soul,
jimbo@leland.Stanford.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.

Are you serious?  Only if you can somehow construe the act of being a
customer as an "economic service."  It doesn't work that way.  The customer,
bu definition, neither employs the merchant nor provides a service to the
merchant.

Greg Bradt aka ()The Lensman()

greg_bradt@msmgate.mrg.uswest.com | Freedom means sometimes
Genie: G.BRADT                    | having to put up with
Compuserve: 70206,172             | things that really
BBS: (303)290 9243                | piss you off.
From: laurel.schippers@hal9k.ann-arbor.mi.us (Laurel Schippers) 
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Abstinence
Date: 7 Jan 93 15:43:00 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) 

JS>AIDS will have to emphasize abstinence over safe sex. Rush
JS>wonders what is wrong with this - the schools are not prohibited
JS>from teaching about condoms or safe sex. Complaining about the
JS>teaching of abstinence is like complaining that kids in drug
JS>classes are told not to do drugs. This simply doesn't make any
JS>sense. Rush used to think that he understood the logic and agenda
JS>of the pro-condom crowd, but now he believes that he was too
JS>lenient; the opposition to abstinence is "hideous."

A large part of the problem is that abstinence is NOT taught
effectively. Teens (like adults) have sex for a lot of the
wrong reasons--to be 'cool', to keep a boyfriend or girlfriend,
because they're drunk, or because of rape. Telling them
Sex Is Bad doesn't do any good, and doesn't give them a positive
attitude about themselves or their sexuality. Teach them that
sex is a big deal, something adults do--not something you should
let somebody pressure you into, or something you should do
when you don't feel right about it.

Teach them that 'scoring' and tab-A-into-slot-B is not the
be-all, end-all of sex. Sexuality includes masturbation,
hugging, kissing, touching, and other ways of being close
that don't involve screwing.

You can teach abstinence, but teaching them that sex is a nasty,
rotten thing that they should avoid isn't going to do squat.
---
 . SLMR 2.0 . "God created Michigan to train the faithful."
 * KMail 2.94e W-NET HQ, hal9k.ann-arbor.mi.us, 313-663-4173 or 3959
                              
----
+------------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
| 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 |
+------------------------------------------+-----------------------------+
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:13102 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:11653 alt.politics.clinton:19671 alt.politics.bush:15593 alt.politics.homosexuality:9015
From: rlc1028@zeus.tamu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Education Regarding Alternative Family Units (Re: The Analogy Betwixt Gays & Blacks (Re: Children in Same-gender Families))
Date: 5 Jan 1993 18:13 CST
Organization: Texas A&M University, College Station, TX
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: zeus.tamu.edu

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".

	That's fine.  Freedom of choice by all means.  But I suppose you 
mean something more than just choosing to put your kid in a private school.



|I was refering to the "taking of one's own life".  I will agree that what you
|have described above is not the "easy way out".  

	Thanks.  Though I also don't think suicide is an easy way out.



|I can only imagine.  I know, even today, that acceptance from those I care
|deeply for is very important to me.  I don't know how I'd react if I learned
|that my son was gay.  I might believed I'd act one way now, but in reality
|I can't even imagine.

	My father originally insisted it was a phase of behaviour
which I could just change eventually with enough enticement.  So,
the parents sent me to the Psych Doc long enough for them to learn
that homosexuality was not merely a bahaviour, and that I wasn't just
"experimenting".  He still doesn't want to talk about it, and hasn't
verbally acknowledged the fact that I have a spouse for over a year.
My mom is more tolerant, interested in my relationship's progress.
For my spouse, it's somewhat reversed.  His dad's the accepting one.


|In any case, I still believe that the responsibility of rearing children 
|belongs to the parents, and the parents alone.  When the state uses the 
|public school system as a method of advancing a social agenda it is cause
|for great alarm!  I am ultimately responsible for the well-being of my 
|children and as such should also be responsible for their upbringing.

	What about when /any/ institution uses a school for the advancement
of a social agenda?  Religious schools do it too.  

	I half agree with children being only the responsibility of the
parents.  At the same time, I can't imagine letting an abusive parent
have reign over the kid.  I imagine you'd agree.  Drawing the line of
intrusion is the issue.  I mean, I understand, since I don't think the
State should be allowed to take away the children of a Gay couple any more 
than of a Het couple.

on Gadson Gadson Gadson Gadson Gadson Gadson Gadson Gadson Gadson Gadson G
Gasdon Gadson Gadson Gadson Gadson Gadson Gadson Gadson Gadson Gadson Gads
on Gadson Gadson Gadson Gadson Gadson Gadson Gadson Gadson Gadson Gadson G

Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: root@june.cmp.rpi.edu (J.R. Ordon)
Subject: Re: Chelsea's school ...
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 15:08:13 GMT

In article <1993Jan8.143512.21395@lclark.edu> snodgras@lclark.edu (Bil Snodgrass) writes:
>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.

One of the problems anyway,
I'll agree with you on this, my brother is a inner-city public school
teacher and tells me this every time the subject comes up.

>
>>
>>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.  
>

Ah, but Quayle never was Commander in Chief, and we both know he would 
never be elected on his own. Besides, he did serve in the Ill. National
Guard and there was a chance, albeit small, that his unit could have 
gone to Vietnam. This was no chance that Clinton would be sent, since
we was a civilian. My problem with Clinton is the way he stayed out of
Military service, and changes in his story on the Campaign trail.

His dishonesty is the MAIN reason I didn't vote for him. If he does well
in his first term, I'll probably support him for another.

>
>Bil Snodgrass III

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

Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:13262 alt.sex:41260 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:11863 alt.politics.correct:6106 alt.politics.equality:32
From: k206027@smog.DKRZ-Hamburg.DE (Bakayaroo Banzai)
Subject: Re: using the bible to advance bigotry
Organization: Deutsches Klimarechenzentrum GmbH, Hamburg
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 93 14:50:29 GMT

In article <1993Jan4.024856.6491@netcom.com> teddybur@netcom.com (John Sanger) writes:
>In article <casivils.726097308@node_508ba> casivils@lescsse.jsc.nasa.gov (craig sivils) writes:
>>In <C07DBw.1oE@math.uwaterloo.ca> shallit@graceland.uwaterloo.ca (Jeffrey Shallit) writes:
>>
>>Whats next, if we can be intolerant toward people for what the beleive but
>>not what they do, whats next.
>>
>>Why is wrong to rob a grave, have sex with animals, children, would it be wrong
>>to spike a pregnant mothers drink with RU42 (or whatever it is), why is
>>blackmail wrong and taxation not?  Fact is that we have to make moral decisions
>>and when it comes down to it, you have to assume something.  If I choose to 
>>believe the Bible and find it to be a workable basis for me then why don't you
>>practice some of that toleration
>>
>
>Because you insist that all others must have the same views as you hold and
>you go to the extreme of trying to legislate them into being.  When you and
>yours stop trying to force your views onto everyone else then the tolerance
>will be there.
>
Please explain why the above statement would not apply equally to any
group trying to advance it's agenda at the expense of the views of 
others which by your definition above would seem to include all
minorities with strongly held beliefs. Lots of people try to force
their views on others, not just Right-Wing religious fanatics.

Pat Robertson and Randall Terry do not represent the views of all Christians.
Trying to pigeon-hole all Christians as moral legislators ala the Republican
Christian Right does people like Mother Theresa and Jimmy Carter a great
disservice.

*******************************************************************************
*  "Supernatural, perhaps...Baloney, perhaps not" - Bela Lugosi               *
*******************************************************************************
Matt Marchese	    The opinions expressed here are not those of my employer, *
Cray Research  	    my wife, my church, or myself...But they are the opinions *
DKRZ                of Elvis as revealved to me through the medium of my pet  *
Hamburg, Germany    hamster, Lee Harvey Oswald...                             *
*******************************************************************************
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: jackies@fc.hp.com (Jackie Sheddy X6958)
Subject: Re: Sexuality
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 06:47:40 GMT
Organization: The Edge of the Final Frontier
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1.3 PL6]

Walter Smith (smithw@col.hp.com) wrote:
: rj24@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Robert  Johnston) writes:
: 
: > When someone says that people of my type are not worthy of life, I do not
: > make that person my friend. This is exactly the attitude of many christians
: > towards homosexuals.
: 
: Not worthy of life?  Get a grip.  If that were the case, you wouldn't be able 
: to openly post that you are gay and live to tell about it.  That is just plain 
: *absurd*.  There's no doubt that homosexuality is looked down upon, but 
: 'not worthy of life'?? 
: 
: Walter

	Obviously  Walter has not heard of the Rev.  Pete  Peters.  This
	"person"  is in the form of the  Minister  of the  LaPorte,  CO,
	Church of  Christ.  A year or so ago, he  published  a  pamphlet
	entitled   _The_Bible_Advocates_Death_to_Homosexuals_.  If   you
	want a copy,  Walter, I can  provide you with one.  Then tell us
	what you told Robert.

	Yes,  Walter,  there are those  people out there that think that
	homosexuals are NOT worthy of life.

--
Regards,

Jackie
jackies@hpxxx.fc.hp.com
Hate is NOT a Family Value!!