HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 10 Sep 1992 20:51:00 EDT
From:         CMORRISO@SNYESCVA.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Is homosexuality immoral?

I think that you were sometimes on the same side then too, but not often.
What happened to Carl?  Did he fall victim to a fate worse than death
(work)?

By the way, there was a really good piece in the NYT on the op-ed page
recently, supposing that a teacher had complained that her tour group had
tried to use the water fountain at the White House, and it was broken.
How did the various candidates in the Presidential/Vice-Presidential
race react to this?  It was funny as hell.  If you all want I will retype
it and send it to the net or to personal addresses (sort of long, around
a thousand words).

                                   Chris Morrison
                                   CMorriso@snyescva.bitnet
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.bitnet
X-VMS-To: IN%"politics@ohstvma.bitnet"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 10 Sep 1992 15:11:00 EST
From:         JCOCURUL@DREW.BITNET
Subject:      Re: ERA

In article <tfilt320512@drew.edu>, Rick George <RIGEORGE@VASSAR.BITNET> writes:
>>[Rick is responding to Robert, who is >>

>> "...on account of sex".  Let me refresh your memory.  There was a great
>> debate over the interpretation of the word sex.  Many claimed that *sex*
>> meant gender only while many others read it as the *act* of sex.

not knowing of such a debate, I can't respond 100% effectively, but I
wonder how big the debate was.  Why are you and Missy trying to cloud
the basic intent of the ERA with talk of it being used for sexual acts
or bathrooms etc. when equality of women is the thing at issue?  How many
people actually believe the 30+ state legislatures who ratified the
ERA didn't do so based on it referring to equality of women?  How many
don't agree that women are being treated unequally in many situations
and such a equal rights law is a valid thing to debate?  How many are
sick and tired of it being sullied with asinine fears of its true
meaning?

>> ---Robert
>
> I don't mean to be Mr. Semantic, but "gender" is a grammatical term and,
> while popular use may be to the contrary, is not a synonym for "sex",
> which has to do with male and female division of a species.  It would
> have been incorrect to replace "sex" with "gender" in the ERA.
>
> ...Rick

Yes!   "Gender" means what a society feels is the proper role of the
different sexes, while sex is a biological term.  The problem is many
against the amendment fear the feminine "gender" will be changed and
women will act more "masculine".  This leads to talk that feminists,
who want women to have equal rights, are some kind of nazi type or
something.  I may be wrong, but I fail to keep from wondering if such
stuff was used by people against the XIX amendment giving women the
right to vote.  I do feel its ok for me to say that the use of "sex"
in that amendment was not meant to apply to homosexuals.  I of course
could be wrong.

         - Joe
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 11 Sep 1992 09:51:20 -0700
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: It's always the money

>>>  It is merely being used as a tool
>>>  of the Religious Right to make people believe they are spending
>>>  hundreds of dollars every year (which they are not) on "pornography"
>>
>>No, they're being forced to cough up hundreds of MILLIONs every
>>year to buy something they don't value.
>
>    They're forced to put up with 1/4 of a cent each year.

If the amount is really so low, why are we lying about it?  It's
$0.64 per person-year or hundreds of millions of dollars.  (Hint:
the NEA budget is not $625k/year.)

>>If the mainstream believed in NEA art, it wouldn't depend on
>>subsidies.  The art that the mainstream believes in gets along just
>>fine with the mainstream's voluntary support.
>
>    Most art produced in this country has obtained some NEA funding.

Try again.
>  What art is it that gets along fine with the mainstream's voluntary
>  support?  Not galleries, not orchestras, not public TV.

Actually, most galleries don't get anything from the NEA.  Orchestras
often get some, and public TV hasn't benefitted.

>  The great treasures of our culture were not created with the funding
>   of the mainstream; what makes you think the treasures of tomorrow
>   can be?

Hint: most NEA money goes to art from OTHER cultures, dead cultures.
Look at what orchestras and operas play.

Art from our culture gets along just fine without NEA help.  If you
can't find that art, you don't know anything about American culture
and art.

The great treasures of American culture are commercial films and
American music, not to mention rodeo, and car racing.  (The great
american art form is monster truck racing accompanied by R&B.)

NEA money goes to art that American's didn't produce and don't
value.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 10 Sep 1992 10:09:13 -0700
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: It's always the money

>> How about if each taxpayer contributes 1/4 of 1 cent toward the purchase of
>> Bibles for use in the public schools?
>
>Great, as long as they also include the Tao Te Ching, the Torah, the Koran,
>the Upanishads, the Bhagavad-gita, and any other scripture one can think of.

Since we're using the NEA as our guide, there's no guarantee that any
specific religion will qualify.  The NEB/R will pick and choose, just
as the NEA does.

>Or is it just *your* religion that gets to play? In which case, why should the
>numerous Jews, Moslems, Buddhists et al. in this country subsidize the
>dissemination of your scripture with their hard-earned quarter-cent?

Bingo!

Notice how the $0.64/taxpayer is nothing, when we're talking about the
NEA, but $0.0025/taxpayer is extreme when we're talking about the
NEB/R.  The principles are obvious.

-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:         Thu, 10 Sep 1992 16:42:29 -0400
From:         SPRG0002@TULSAJC.BITNET
Subject:      Re: ERA

 *** Resending note of 09/10/92 11:08

 > The sponsor(s) of the ERA denied that the sex act was in any way the
 > intent of their amendment.  However, they were *LYING*.  They flatly
 > refused to substitute the word *gender* which would have narrowed any
 > possible future court interpretations.  Instead, they took the typical
 > approach of the *caught in the act* crowd and simply claimed it was
 > not necessary.  Their refusal to allow the change proved without a doubt
 > that their real intent was indeed the *sex act*.  The ERA was not about
 > equal rights for women.  It was about equal rights for gays, lesbians and
 > pedophiles.  WAKE UP!
 >
 > ---Robert

 >>I don't mean to be Mr. Semantic, but "gender" is a grammatical term and,
 >>while popular use may be to the contrary, is not a synonym for "sex",
 >>which has to do with male and female division of a species.  It would
 >>have been incorrect to replace "sex" with "gender" in the ERA.
 >>
 >>...Rick

 Well, you better get a letter off to Roget's Thesaurus, they don't seem to
 know.  "Gender" is the first alternative for "sex" in their handy little
 reference.

 My other handy little reference, it's called a dictionary, defines gender as
 classification into masculine, feminine and neuter. Gosh, this sounds like
 it could mean differences in anatomy.  Along with this same general definition,
 the word sex also contains *activities*, thus the potential for use/misuse
 of the term in the amendment.

 The use of the term *gender* would have removed the implied endorsement of
 perverted sex acts.  That's why they refused!  The largest amount of support
 for the ERA came from the homosexual community.  I wonder why?

 ---Robert
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 8 Sep 1992 20:42:17 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: democratic platform/homosexuality

JB:

Your attempt at Marxist analysis works rather well, until we take into
account that the middle class is a relatively recent invention, and
morality is not.

There is a good deal of Biblical stuff behind this, but I won't put it
on the list.  If you want it, mail me private.

--Missy P 2 B
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
From: holzman@fnalno.fnal.gov (Daniel B. Holzman)
Subject: Re:      re: An easy answer to a little question
Organization: Fermi National Accelerator Lab
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 19:23:01 GMT
X-Posted-From: fnalno.fnal.gov
X-Posted-Through: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <POLITICS%92090918031336@OHSTVMA.IRCC.OHIO-STATE.EDU>,         
SPRG0002@TULSAJC.BITNET writes:
>  A *reasonable case* would be applicable in a situation where the outcome was
>  undecided.  In this case, the facts have never been in question, only your
>  willingness to accept them.
> 
>  ---Robert

Of course the facts are in question!  You yourself are in disagreement with the
Goddess' own words: "All acts of Love and pleasure are my rituals."
-- 
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
From: holzman@fnalno.fnal.gov (Daniel B. Holzman)
Subject: Re:      Re: Pennies from Heaven
Organization: Fermi National Accelerator Lab
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 19:30:16 GMT
X-Posted-From: fnalno.fnal.gov
X-Posted-Through: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <9209092220.AA12362@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>,         
Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU> writes:
>>In all seriousness, if we DID give 1/4 of a cent to put the Bible in the
>>classroom, who's doctrine would we follow?
> 
> The National Endowment for Bibles (or Religion) would decide what
> Bibles to subsidize by consulting experts and a peer review process.
> 
> Other Bibles and Religion would still be available, they just wouldn't
> be tax-supported.

Of course, this is where you run into the first amendment, another place where
the analogy is not parallell to the NEA.  If there were an amentment forbidding
the mixture of art and state, you'd have a better case.
-- 
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.
From: jwales@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (jimmy donal wales)
Subject: Re: democratic platform/homosexuality
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 10:28:52 GMT

Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET> writes:

>Your observation is correct.  Sexual morality is, indeed, going out
>the window, in large part because *we* as a nation threw it there.

I didn't!

--Jimbo

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:         Mon, 14 Sep 1992 12:32:59 -0400
From:         KILBURN@WVSVAX.WVNET.EDU
Subject:      Re: what to do in a world that trivializes intelligence

As long as we're telling stories:)
I was in a gifted program in elementary school only (in jr high and high
school this was basically replaced by tracking).  It was kind of neat in
some ways, but didn't really affect me that much (except to exacerbate my
math anxiety -- see, I never really learned to add, subtract, multiply, and
divide, but was placed into advanced math classes where we had speed tests
on those general topics).  My daughter's program, on the other hand, seems
to be doing her some good.  At least it's exposing her to a situation in
which she can't "give 10%" and still do better than most.

Tracking is something I've always had mixed feelings about.  I don't like
the idea of "if I'm in this class I must be really dumb -- guess there's no
point in trying."  At the same time, I used to get really aggravated at the
abysmal pace of my non-tracked classes.  Any ideas about how to encourage
people to make the most of their abilities across the board?

For the record, I had generally positive experiences in high school.
Partly it was great teachers, partly it was a group of friends who liked
learning and the "life of the mind," and partly it was my own determination
to make the most out of my classes, even when the classes were boring and
stupid.  That attitude served me well as an undergrad, as well :)

Kerry
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
From: jwales@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (jimmy donal wales)
Subject: Straight Answer Requested
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 18:47:43 GMT

Missy Justice,

I still don't quite understand what your position is regarding
legal rights.  I interpreted one post of yours as saying that
we ought to have certain rights which may not be infringed upon
by the majority.  But then you responded with something that
LOOKED to me like you were saying that people only have a right
to be good.  But perhaps I misunderstood.

What general principles do you think we ought to use in deciding
whether or not we ought to adopt some law?

In particular, do you think that there is some sphere of activity
which ought to be left up to the individual, no matter how much
the rest of us dislike the choices the individual makes?

--Jimbo

Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 9 Sep 1992 18:48:20 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: It's always the money

G. Racz:

Where do you think the Greeks got it?

--Missy P 2 B
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 12 Sep 1992 13:11:44 -0700
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: 1% Tax Cut

>Even for me the older proposal was much better.  But say
>it would come even for my family.  That means any family
>with a income less than mine will get even less and any
>family with an income more than mine would get more.

I always find it interesting when someone says that a
tax break is "getting" something.  It's really just LOSING
less.

A 1% rate reduction for someone paying 30% reduces their taxes by 3%,
but is a 10% reduction for someone paying 10%.  That's a progressive
change.  It isn't as progressive as a per-person rebate, but ....

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
X-VMS-Cc: RIGEORGE
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 15 Sep 1992 07:51:59 -0400
From:         Rick George <RIGEORGE@VASSAR.BITNET>
Subject: Re: New York Senate Race

Today is primary day in New York and the word is that Ferraro and
Abrams are running neck and neck.  A poll taken Sunday evening
by the Marist Institute showed movement away from Ferraro to an
undecided position.  The top three candidates (Ferraro/Abrams/Holtzman)
have been running television ads like there's no tomorrow...

Sunday's televised debate with the four was nasiter than the first
debate, with Bob Abrams taking over Liz Holtzman's role as chief
Ferraro beater.  Who would have thought that Al Sharpton would come
off as the voice of reason in any situation?  As Bobby and Gerry were
going at each other at one point, Sharpton asked them to stop, saying
"there are children watching."  In the debates, Gerry has held her
own, I think, against Abrams's and Holtzman's attacks and shown that
she can respond with nasty charges of her own.  Abrams (and Sharpton)
again declined an opportunity to say that he would support the winner
of today's Democratic primary.  Best line of the debate again goes
to the Reverend Sharpton who, when asked by moderator Gabe Pressman
to say something nice about Abrams, said "Bob Abrams has a very
attractive family."  (Abrams and Sharpton tangled during the Tawana
Brawley affair and Abrams is currently prosecuting Sharpton on state
income tax charges).

Other NY observations:  If Mario Biaggi beats Eliot Engel in the 17th
Congressional district primary, it will do a lot to enhance the
reputation of New York City politics.  Convicted felon Biaggi has
been endorsed by the Patrolmen's Benevolent Association.

Voters in the 8th Congressional district are in the position of having
to vote for Ted Weiss in today's primary, even though he died yesterday.
If the late Mr. Weiss wins the primary, Democratic leaders get to
choose his successor.  If New Alliance Party challenger Arthur Block
wins--he's the nominee.

...Rick
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sun, 6 Sep 1992 17:17:15 EST
From:         macphil <IQTI400@INDYCMS.IUPUI.EDU>
Subject:      Re: democratic platform/homosexuality
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>

On Sat, 5 Sep 1992 13:05:52 -0500 Jason Briggs Cormier said:
>Anyone heard of the hypothesis that AIDS made its way into the
>human population because of uncareful research for polio vaccines?
>I read this in _Rolling Stone_ a few months ago, but I had heard
>that it had been covered in _Time_ or something.

Hence Salk's involvement in finding a vaccine?

------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The lesser of two evils is still evil." - Winston Churchill

MacPhil / iqti400@indycms.bitnet / iqti400@indycms.iupui.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sun, 6 Sep 1992 14:37:30 EST
From:         macphil <IQTI400@INDYCMS.IUPUI.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Rights, and other comments ...
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>

On Sat, 5 Sep 1992 19:19:35 CDT The Truth (some assembly required) said:
>Well, I know that as for "mudslinging," Val can probably remember
>campaigns with more mud slung than even the 1988 campaign which
>was supposed to be so dirty. I sort of think that there used to

Some of it is also relative, as in some of our Founding Fathers, later
Presidents, who were slave owners and that was considered standard practice
for that time.  Some of the others' "downfalls" have been a little more
universal taboos throughout the entire timeline (e.g. illegitimate
children).


"Ma! Ma! Where's my Pa?"
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 8 Sep 1992 21:22:28 -0500
From:         GAYLA BASSHAM <BASGD@RHODES.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Re:War Between the Jasons

>Concerning the 'marriage' between homosexuals...

>Are there not homosexual marriages already?  There are actual homosexual
>unions complete with wedding and reception activities that have been shown
>on videos.  It seemed that these homosexual marriages were performed by
>a minister.

>While I also agree that a homosexual marriage is wrong morally and Biblically,
>they are performed, and are not restricted.  I have even heard the term
>'partnership' instead of the word 'marriage' applied to homosexual unions.
>This term I just heard the past week.

>Still, there are these 'partnerships' that do exist between members of the
>same gender and they are still performed, the state and court are not
>stopping them.  Though I agree with the law that a homosexual union is no
>a legitimate marriage, yet they are still happening.
>Though I agree with the law that this is not a legitimate marriage, yet they
>So how can homosexuals say they are being discriminated against when they
>are performing them anyway?

Because they do not receive any of the benefits that heterosexual couples do
(for example, a homosexual man's partner is not covered under family health
insurance plans).  Often the partner is not even recognized as next of kin,
which leads to all kinds of problems should he or she become seriously ill.
One woman had to sue just for the right to visit her partner in the hospital.

>Sue Clark

-----Gayla
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.BITNET
X-VMS-To: @POL
X-VMS-Cc: CDELL
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 15 Sep 1992 14:01:54 -0500
From:         "VALENTINE M. SMITH" <CDELL@UMKCVAX1.BITNET>
Subject:      Morality = "religious values?"

I think not. Morality, to my mind, is the standards one adopts to live life.
They may or may not have anything to do with religion. I suggest that my
"godless morality" is just as strong, perhaps more so because it took hard
thinking to arrive at a moral standard that disinvolved religion, than those
who claim religion as a basis for their moral standards. Robert, nor any
other "religious moralist," is in no position to judge whether my morality
is flawed because it has no specific religious base, nor can I judge his.
However, I feel his assertion that morality = "religious values" is a false
and degrading assertion, for it again only allows "Christian" or "religious"
morality to have effacy - and I see that as an fallacious reasoning process,
because it only gives credence to one kind of moral standard. VMS
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 16:08:38 EST
From:         macphil <IQTI400@INDYCMS.IUPUI.EDU>
Subject:      Re: read my lips: I have family values
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>
              10 Sep 1992 13:12:25 EDT from <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU >

On Thu, 10 Sep 1992 13:12:25 EDT K=A*T said:

>> Perhaps the education voucher provides the ability for poorer families
>> to attend private schools?

>It was wise of you to have said "poorer" rather than "poor."

I also pronounce it as "poor-er", not "pour-er" :{)

>In addition, if the vouchers are given to families without
>regard to their financial situation, the majority of the
>people who will benefit will be those who are *already*
>sending their kids to private schools.  And that mostly
>means upper and upper middle class families.

If you meant "in addition", then you meant this as a point separate from
the fact it won't cover your ability to pay?  If so, how can you ensure
it will benefit richer families?  What will the selection criteria be
to determine and guide this?

------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The lesser of two evils is still evil." - Winston Churchill

MacPhil / iqti400@indycms.bitnet / iqti400@indycms.iupui.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU