HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: briand@anasazi.com (Brian Douglass)
Subject: Re: Sexuality
Organization: Anasazi Inc Phx Az USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 21:58:48 GMT

In article <1iehldINNjck@hp-col.col.hp.com> smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes:
>cfthb@ux1.cts.eiu.edu (Howard Black) writes:
>>     1.  Why do they need to be married to have a child?
>
>? To provide the stability that a child needs.  Being married 
>doesn't guarantee it, and *not* being married doesn't preclude it; 
>but all other things being equal, there is more support for a 
>growing child in a family. 

Though I agree with Walter on somethings, here I have to disagree.
Historically, females have had little opportunity to solely provide a child
or children the necessities of life for effective rearing.  However, in our
modern society such economic realities have changed the situation where a
single mother can effectively raise a family (Look at Isiah Thomas'
upbringing as a successful example).  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.

>
>>     2.  If they used redundant birth control such that the chances of
>> conception were virtually zero (just for the sake of this discussion),
>> would that be OK?
>
>As long as they treated what they were doing, and who they were
>doing it with, with respect, (and didn't treat it all as cavalierly as 
>their golf score) then I would not make any 'morality' judgements 
>on it without doing so from a 'religion' standpoint.  

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?  Suppose one partner is dominate and the other submissive, and
as part of their relationship includes the dominate partner degrading the
submissive.  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?

(and again, we're outside the religious standpoint, which does claim a
right to make pronouncements on such activity)

>Walter
> 


-- 
"The best government of all is that government which governs the least."
	Jefferson
Brian Douglass		briand@anasazi.com 	602-870-3330 X657
From: mike@execu.execu.com (Mike McCants)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Chelsea's school ...
Date: 7 Jan 93 20:11:36 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Comshare, Inc. Austin Development Center

In article Nathan Engle writes:

>IMHO before we start handing out what are essentially tax refunds for 
>disgruntled parents

No one ever claimed there should be any relationship between taxes
paid and school choice money handed out.

>At that point maybe it will 
>become obvious that tax money paid for public education is not tagged for 
>the personal use of any individual kids,

State aid to schools is based on the number of kids attending.
Fewer kids => less state aid.

"Everyone" computes $4000/child ($80,000 per classroom) and says
"we need more money".  If they had fewer kids to teach...

If a private school closes down and their students go to public
schools, your taxes will go up.  If a $4000 kid was given $2000
to go to a private school, why shouldn't your taxes go down?

>enjoy benefits as a result of living in a 
>society which provides its citizens with a basic education.

Too bad the US does not qualify as such a society.  The US provides
the opportunity, too bad most citizens are not interested in taking
advantage of that opportunity.  A few dollars to allow those who
would like to get a good education to separate themselves from
those who are not interested might go a long way.
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:13556 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:12185 alt.politics.clinton:20028 alt.politics.bush:15790 alt.politics.homosexuality:9318
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 and Secular Reasoning
Date: 11 Jan 93 06:40:28 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Arizona UNIX Users Group

In article <1993Jan6.201444.17666@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
>
>There is no question that our founders were extremely Christian.
>
>Ted

Yup.  And yet they were wise enough not to try to force their religion
on everybody else.
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:13522 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:12114 alt.politics.clinton:19992 alt.politics.bush:15771 alt.politics.homosexuality:9289
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: Sexuality
Date: 7 Jan 93 21:52:49 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson AZ

In article <C0I3J6.4s6@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> albrigh@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (thomas g albright) writes:
>In article <1993Jan7.155136.18478@asl.dl.nec.com> 
>dillhoff@aslws01.asl.dl.nec.com (Doug Dillhoff) writes:
>>
>>Apparently you still have not gotten the point. Most of the drug and
>>sex ed. programs in use today have been found to increase the use of
>>drugs and have increased promiscuity (teen pregnancy, std's). They
>
>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

Try again!  Just recently, on Rush's show, he chronicled the first, big 
time school district to fully implement sex-ed (including condom distribution). 
The pregnancy rates soared!

Where did you hear your claim.

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: patm@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Pat Murphy)
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 20:58:03 GMT
Subject: Re: Colorado Amendment2 Query
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA
From: dbernard@clesun.Central.Sun.COM (Dave Bernard)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Colorado Amendment2 Query
Date: 6 Jan 1993 12:33:56 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems
Distribution: world
Reply-To: dbernard@clesun.Central.Sun.COM
NNTP-Posting-Host: clesun.central.sun.com

Brian Douglass writes:

>>Tourism is reported up by 10% in Colorado since the call for Boycotts

I've also heard that business at the ski resorts is up 20% this year.  Which
brings to mind something I said here a couple months ago... don't start boycotts
you're not sure of winning.  If you don't win, it makes your cause appear to
have less merit than it did before, and in effect vindicates the opposing cause.

	Dave
From: Jeffrey.Thorson <Jeffrey.Thorson@mixcom.mixcom.com>
Subject: Congressinal Treatments
Organization: Milwaukee Internet Xchange BBS, Milwaukee, WI U.S.A.
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 03:26:28 GMT

So far, why hasn't Clinton's nominees received 
   (chose one:
       a Borking -or-
       the Tower treatment -or-
       a Thomas like lynching)?

My theories:
	1. You can't Bork, etc. without the press.
	2. The minority party can't Bork, etc.
	3. The Republicans believe that in 
           the absence of any serious flaw, 
           the president's appointees should be 
           accepted.

All, some or none may apply.
	
           
-- 
Jeffrey.Thorson@mixcom.com    | There are two rules for success:
Symmetrix Software, Inc.      |    1) Never tell everything you know.
                              |                      -- Roger H. Lincoln
                              |
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: elf@halcyon.com (Elf Sternberg)
Subject: Re: Sexuality
Originator: elf@halcyon.com
Organization: Pendor, UnLtd.
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 22:36:59 GMT

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

>cfthb@ux1.cts.eiu.edu (Howard Black) writes:
>>     1.  Why do they need to be married to have a child?

>  To provide the stability that a child needs.  Being married
>doesn't guarantee it, and *not* being married doesn't preclude it; 
>but all other things being equal, there is more support for a 
>growing child in a family. 

   Walter, of course, here immediately states blindly that
marriage = family.  I know plenty of marriages that make lousy families
and I know plenty more families that have nothing to do with marriage.
For my purposes, a family exists to support dependants, usually
children.  And I don't just mean financially.  Marriage and family are
not related except by accident.

         Elf !!!
--
elf@halcyon.com  (Elf Sternberg)

Then, I was inspired.               God, thy will is hard
Now, I'm sad and tired.             But you hold every card.
Listen, surely I've exceeded        I will drink your cup of poison.
Expectations.                       Nail me to your cross and break me.
Tried for three years,              Bleed me, beat me.
Seems like thirty.                  Kill me.
Could you ask as much               Take me now.
From any other man?                 Before I change my mind.
From: mike@execu.execu.com (Mike McCants)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Chelsea's school ...
Date: 9 Jan 93 22:17:26 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Comshare, Inc. Austin Development Center

In article 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?
From: mike@execu.execu.com (Mike McCants)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Chelsea's school ...
Date: 8 Jan 93 21:12:01 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Comshare, Inc. Austin Development Center

In article Nathan Engle writes:

>    Would you then agree that the primary goal of Bush's school choice 
>plan is the wholesale dismantlement of the public education system? 

1.  Why say "primary goal"?  Bush seeks "revenge"?  The NEA must be
"punished"?  One would hope that such a plan would be adopted because
it achieves a greater good for a larger number of people at lower
total cost.  The "poor" and "underclass" will be always with us?
Will the plight of that "minority" really be much worse?

2.  If it were "Bush's plan", there wouldn't be much point in talking
about it, would there?

3.  Why use the word "wholesale"?

Let's try:

"Would you agree that one possible outcome of trying a "school
voucher" plan experimentally might be that 20 years from now
there might be no publicly owned and operated schools in the US?"

Yes, that's one possible outcome.  I'm not going to argue that's
it's an absolutely undesirable outcome.  A lot of choices will
be made in the next 20 years.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Subject: Re: Sexuality
Reply-To: john@anasazi.com
Organization: Anasazi, Inc.  Phoenix, Arizona USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 04:48:18 GMT

Keywords: 

In article <1993Jan8.233736.2023@asl.dl.nec.com> dillhoff@aslws01.asl.dl.nec.com (Doug Dillhoff) writes:
]
]A special news program on LSD was aired (CBS 01/07?) the other night
]which showed several cases of psychological problems caused by LSD.
]They also showed a few users who were thought to have damaged parts
]of their brains causing acute sensitivity to bright lights and certain
]sounds. There were other cases also presented. There have also been
]deaths associated with the use of LSD.

Including my cousin, who on July 4, 1968, while stoned on LSD,
doused herself from a gasoline pump and lit a match. It took her
7 months to die.

Nevertheless, as life's hazards go, LSD isn't that high on the list.
]
]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. Homosexuality as a lifestyle
]is a different type of topic. 

I don't know about significant physical harm (outside of STD's and
pregnancy). On the other hand, I think way too many people ignore
the psychological effects of promiscuity.

-- 
John Moore NJ7E, 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253  (602-951-9326)
john@anasazi.com ncar!noao!asuvax!anasaz!john anasaz!john@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
 - - A conservative is a liberal who has been mugged by reality! - -
 - - Support ALL of the bill of rights, INCLUDING the 2nd amendment! - -
From: mike@execu.execu.com (Mike McCants)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Chelsea's school ...
Date: 12 Jan 93 00:36:17 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Comshare, Inc. Austin Development Center

In article dash@skyy.b30.ingr.com writes:

>And if you don't mind me going on a tangent, how can Rush Limbaugh
>be against a national health care plan, "remember the litany, health care is
>not a right, Clinton is for socialized medicine" and for school vouchers...
>                                   O.P.P

Supposely, school vouchers would increase competition and decrease
the wasted dollars going to "administration".  Supposely, a national
health care plan would decrease competiton (perhaps questionable)
and create a new, giant Federal government "administration".

In the name of "efficiency", one can prefer one and reject the other.

In the name of "less government", ...

In the name of "fairness", one could accept both.

[In the name of "fairness", one could accept socialism.  It's hardly
very fair that rich people should exist.]
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:13408 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:11996 alt.politics.clinton:19915 alt.politics.bush:15725 alt.politics.homosexuality:9221
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: 8 Jan 1993 21:59:45 GMT
Organization: Colorado Springs IT Center
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: fajita19.cs.itc.hp.com

jahn@guinness.Idbsu.EDU (Greg Jahn) writes:
> 
> Why does any of this matter? [...etc...]  
> It's none of your business.

As for people's rights, etc, it *doesn't* matter.  But by talking 
about things like this, maybe people will have a better understanding 
of where the other is coming from, and how they see things.   

Walter

Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (kellmeyer steven l)
Subject: Re: Lifestyle Choices and Secular Reasoning
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 13:31:25 GMT

teddybur@netcom.com (John Sanger) writes:

>In article <C0B0Cu.Eu7@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (kellmeyer steven l) writes:
>>harp@netcom.com (Gregory O. Harp) writes:
>>
>>>"SLK>" is "kellmeyer steven l"
>>>"LCF>" is "Lawrence C. Foard"
>>
>>>SLK>Why is *secular* reasoning superior to religious reasoning? 
>>
>>>LCF>I'm sitting 10 feet from a machine that can produce 3d images of your
>>>LCF>internal organs, it was designed by secular reasoning.
>>
>>>SLK>And it was designed in a country founded upon a belief in God.  The 
>>>SLK>country founded upon atheism and a belief in man no longer exists.
>>
>>>REALLY?  Since when?  
>>
>>>The USA was founded mainly by atheists, and laws were put in its
>>>charters to keep it that way.  Since then, we've moved farther away
>>>from religious influence, not closer.  Take a look at the number of
>>>judgements in the last few decades restricting things like prayer in
>>>schools, etc.
>>
>>Greg, I have no idea where they attempted to teach you history, but
>>I don't think those NoDoze worked.  Not by *ANY* stretch of overblown
>>historical imagination were the founders of our country atheists.  
>>That's simply wrong.  The judgments given in the last few decades prove
>>not one thing about the founding fathers of this country - who would
>>undoubtedly be appalled at the incredible way their ideals were twisted.
>>

>Excuse me, but to my recallection Thomas Jefferson was an ATHEIST.

Excuse me, but your recallection (sic) is wrong.  He was a Deist.
The only person I can think of off-hand that might begin to be called
an atheist was Voltaire.  Even Rousseau held that there was a Supreme
Being.  YOu are being anachronistic by asserting that there was 
a school of thought that could be referred to as "atheism", as we know it,
in the eighteenth century.  The question revolved around what God's 
nature _was_, and to what degree God acted in every day life.  No one
really began asserting that there was, in fact, no God at all 
until Nietszche, although you might make a good case for Darwin after
1860.

>Ciao!
>	John S. :^)
>	teddybur@netcom.com
>__

Steve Kellmeyer
-- 

Steve Kellmeyer 
kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.sex,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.correct,alt.politics.equality,alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.politics.clinton
From: robert@oahu.cs.ucla.edu (Rob Karmolinski)
Subject: Re: Protection for homosexuals *is* valid (Was "Colorado Amendment2 Query")
Organization: UCLA, Computer Science Department
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 93 14:36:35 GMT

karl@anasazi.com (Karl Dussik) writes:

>In article <10JAN199301241456@zeus.tamu.edu> rlc1028@zeus.tamu.edu writes:
>>	Sexual orientation defines what gender you're attracted to,
>>and nothing more.  It does not define one's practises, or one's other
>>sexual preferences.

>I guess I'm just naive - why is the word "orientation" restricted to gender
>in this context?  Is that a legal definition, a PC definition, or what?

(To the best of my knowledge), whenever the phrase "sexual orientation"
has been included in anti-discrimination legislation, it is usually
accompanied by a specific legal definition, typically restricting it to
"heterosexuality, homosexuality, or bisexuality".

One of the tactics used by the CFV, TVC, and other religious propoganda
organizations in promoting the passage of CO 2, was to claim that the
phrase "sexual orientation" is too vague, and could potentially serve to
legally protect other "orientations", such as bestiality, pedophilia,
rape, or child molestation, while denying such "special rights" for
heterosexuals.  I guess this tactic was used, just in case the bill
couldn't pass on its own merits.

--
rob	(robert@cs.ucla.edu)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari)
Subject: Re: Sexuality
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 21:54:19 GMT

In article <1993Jan5.181623.11348@sun0.urz.uni-heidelberg.de> gsmith@lauren.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de (Gene W. Smith) writes:
>>>Incorrect, as well as irrelevant.
>
>>In your opinion.
>
>Wrong.  


	NO, right.  He's 100% on target.  You think he's wrong, he think's
	he's right.  What is your basis?  Some pathetic argument on animals.

	Neither of you has evidence.  Certainly not enough to validate 
	changing/implementing a curriculum focused on some perverse
	social-engineering goals.  
	

>Do you also think homosexuality in animals is a
>"lifestyle choice"?  Do you have any facts, arguments or evidence
>of any kind for your opinion?


	We also see:

	1. extreme violence
	2. cannibalism
	3. rape
	4. incest
	5. theft
	
	in animals.  Does this make it "right" for mankind?


>Tolerance includes the toleration of people with points of view like
>yours, incidentally, a fact which may become increasingly important to
>you, since the number of people who think your beliefs are evil and
>immoral appears to be growing.


	Not really.  It appears that way to people on this side, because
	people on this side are becoming noisier.  The raw number of 
	people is probably not changing one bit.


>Would you object to teaching facts about homosexuality and letting
>students draw their own conclusions?  


	Will we be teaching (just) the facts about incest, wife beating,
	adultery, rape and such and let the students draw their own
	conclusions there?


>For instance, if we simply said
>that homosexual parents do not appear to have an adverse effect on
>their children, would that be OK in a way that Heather and Her Two
>Moms is not OK?


	I would object to that assertion because it hasn't been 
	shown to be true.  

	(But then, I object to all non-academic courses in schools.
	Social Studies?  Watered down history without dates with some
	perverse sociology thrown in)

	Go look up the etomology of "grammar school"--school is not 
	to create well rounded little citizens, it it to create 
	people with learning who know how to go about learning 
	further.

-- 
      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.
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:13131 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:11697 alt.politics.clinton:19687 alt.politics.bush:15609 alt.politics.homosexuality:9034
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: 6 Jan 1993 12:00:45 GMT
Organization: Colorado Springs IT Center
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: fajita19.cs.itc.hp.com

cfthb@ux1.cts.eiu.edu (Howard Black) writes:
>     1.  Why do they need to be married to have a child?

? To provide the stability that a child needs.  Being married 
doesn't guarantee it, and *not* being married doesn't preclude it; 
but all other things being equal, there is more support for a 
growing child in a family. 

>     2.  If they used redundant birth control such that the chances of
> conception were virtually zero (just for the sake of this discussion),
> would that be OK?

As long as they treated what they were doing, and who they were
doing it with, with respect, (and didn't treat it all as cavalierly as 
their golf score) then I would not make any 'morality' judgements 
on it without doing so from a 'religion' standpoint.  

Walter
 
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality