HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: paul@hsh.com
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Legislating niceness (Was Re: Gays in the Military)
Date: 17 Dec 92 17:17:45 GMT
Organization: HSH Associates

In article <YOUNG.92Dec15125318@ssdd475a.erim.org>, young@ssdd475a.erim.org (Peter Young) writes:
> In article <1992Dec14.172352.362@hsh.com> paul@hsh.com writes:
> 
>>   Since when did having religious beliefs become an occupational hazard for a
>>   landlord?  Not until this lawsuit, it didn't.  I think you need more balance 
>>   between the tenant's rights (anti-discrimination laws) with the landlord's
>>   Constitutional rights -- specifically freedom of association on *their* 
>>   property.  Yes, let's bring in property rights, since the state is co-opting 
>>   them to some degree.
> 
> Unfortunately, the court ruled in MUNN v. ILLINOIS, 1876, that "when
> private property is devoted to public use, it is subject to public
> regulation."  This would seem to fall under the same rubric.

Are you applying the right case law here?  Was Munn v IL a property-rights 
case?  If so, I can envision all KINDS of mischief arising from that blanket 
statement.  Just think of all the civil rights that do NOT apply to public 
property, that DO apply to private property.  

------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ 

Paul Havemann, VP        HSH Associates          (201) 838-3330 | 1-800-UPDATES
Internet: paul@hsh.com   Compuserve: 70410,3507  America On-Line: HSH Assoc
  ...Any opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the company...
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton
From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Subject: Re: Gays in the Military..what nobody is talking about:
Reply-To: john@anasazi.com
Organization: Anasazi, Inc.  Phoenix, Arizona USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 04:28:50 GMT

Keywords: 

In article <1992Dec15.174154.3940@m5.harvard.edu> borden@m5.harvard.edu writes:
]>Where is any individual guaranteed the right to serve in the military.
]>This has nothing to do with equal rights.
]
]I repeat, there's no room in the public budget for unfair discrimination.
]If you want to be isolated from gays, then go somewhere and be isolated
]from them.  But don't pay for it with taxpayer money.

Dave, surely you jest. Do you mean that the government can never
discriminate except when it is "fair"? What does "fair" mean? Can
it hire unqualified people by jury rigging test results based on
race (race norming) and be fair? Can it hire people to meet a sexual
quota and be fair? Can it refuse to hire a handicapped person because
that person might not be qualified? How about someone with a personality
disorder?

What do YOU mean by "unfair discrimination"? What is it about sexual
orientation that makes it a special case? How about people who don't
bathe but are otherwise qualified? Should the military be forced
to hire them?

Is there any objective line to "unfair discrimination" or is it just
a handy term that really means "discrimination against those whom I
favor?"

-- 
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
 - - Support ALL ...erk  glugh   mmpph.... Memory fault (core dumped)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush
From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Subject: Re: Homophobes in the Military..what nobody is talking about: (Re: Gays in the Military..what nobody is talking about: )
Reply-To: john@anasazi.com
Organization: Anasazi, Inc.  Phoenix, Arizona USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 16:47:07 GMT

Keywords: 

In article <1992Dec18.223536.14694@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> cfthb@ux1.cts.eiu.edu (Howard Black) writes:
]In article <1992Dec16.155404.16544@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
]>
]>No sexual content there, simply trying to persuade my children that a 
]>deviant lifestyle is normal/acceptable.  That is not the public school's 
]>job.  It is mine and my wife's.
]
]    I'm glad you recognize your obligation to show children that alternate
]lifestyles are normal/acceptable.  
I recognize the obligation to discuss these things with children. However,
I have NO obligation to recognize all lifestyles as normal/acceptable.
I don't believe homosexual couples should be able to adopt children.
[flame suit on] This means that I don't feel that homosexual couples
are a good place to raise kids (and NOT because I fear that the kids
will be turned gay). 

]"Deviant" is in the eye of the beholder,
]and I do not agree.  How about giving the children the facts, and let them
]make up their own minds?  The classification of gay couples as following a
]deviant lifestyle is not a fact; it's an opinion.
Now we are down to semantics. If deviant means infrequent and unusual,
then their lifestyle is deviant. If it becomes a perjorative term,
then it is IMHO inappropriate.


]>Where, pray tell, in the Ten Commandments, does it say, "accept your 
]>brother?"  The Bible does, however, say, "Go and sin no more," and 
]
]    Who, pray tell, gives a damn?  
Lots of americans care, as their religion recognizes the Ten Commandments.
]
]>Perhaps they are free to remove their children from the class, but doesn't 
]>this smack of the same problem as voluntary prayer?  Children can sit 
Of course this is the same problem as voluntary prayer. However, since
the goal is "sex ed" (whatever that is these days), it is considered
okay to inflict this on kids even if it goes against their religion
or their parents' wishes. And hey, sex ed must be important... look at
how well it works: Unwanted pregnancies are at a record rate; VD is
increasing rapidly. 

Never underestimate the abilities of the social engineers to rationalize
their impositions on others.


-- 
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
       - - My gun is safer than Ted Kennedy's car - -
 - - - "It is better to be judged by twelve, than carried by six." - - -
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
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: 17 Dec 1992 11:00 CST
Organization: Texas A&M University, College Station, TX
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: zeus.tamu.edu

In article <1gq251INNe69@hp-col.col.hp.com>, smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes...
|rlc1028@zeus.tamu.edu   writes:
|> 	Why do you feel it necessary to portray families as based on
|> the specific sexual practises?  Isn't it sufficient simply to show families
|> as based on gender differences (or similarities) alone?  In other words,
|> showing a family with two male parents doesn't even bring into question
|> the activities in the bedroom.  And I think that's where alternative
|> family education in schools should end.
| 
|Actually, I agree.  If the book showed "cooking in the kitchen, playing 
|ball in the park", etc, and skipped the last part, it would do just 
|that.  What might be even better would be showing a couple of families 
|of mixed and same gender doing things together, etc.  

	Well now, since I have not read the book, you'll have to tell me 
what the "last part" shows.

Gadson
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton
From: young@ssdd475a.erim.org (Peter Young)
Subject: Re: Gays in the Military..what nobody is talking about:
In-reply-to: john@anasazi.com's message of Sun, 13 Dec 1992 05:45:52 GMT
Organization: Environmental Research Institute of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
	<1992Dec12.062222.14183@anasazi.com>
	<YOUNG.92Dec12151134@ssdd475a.erim.org>
	<1992Dec13.054552.8080@anasazi.com>
Distribution: usa
Date: 13 Dec 92 12:50:39

In article <1992Dec13.054552.8080@anasazi.com> john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore) writes:

   In article <YOUNG.92Dec12151134@ssdd475a.erim.org> young@ssdd475a.erim.org (Peter Young) writes:
   ]In article <1992Dec12.062222.14183@anasazi.com> john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore) writes:
>   ]
>   ]>   New slogan: Service for Fogies! Let us back into the military! It's
>   ]>   out right! Discrimination is wrong!
>   ]
>   ]If you wanted in so badly, you never should have left in the first
>   ]place.
>   Obviously a non-sequitur.

Exactly.  So why do you keep repeating this ridiculous argument about
age?  Age affects your ability to withstand the rigours of basic
training.  Homosexuality does not.

John, most of your arguments against deal with the problems of
everyone but the potential enlistee.  When you start satirizing
arguments about rights with ageism and rules against blind and
physically challenged :) individuals, you must then continue by
showing why the homosexual is in some way incapable of performing the
necessary duties.  You have never, not once, shown this incapacity, or
even claimed it, so drop the unrelated arguments.  It does you and
your 'unit cohesion' theme a disservice.  When you can show a
difference between cohesion threatened by a homosexual and that
threatened by an African American, then you may begin to win some
hearts and minds.  So far, you are still at the starting gate.  Saying
it over and over makes your argument become just so much noise.

--
Peter Young
young@erim.org
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush
From: cfthb@ux1.cts.eiu.edu (Howard Black)
Subject: Re: Homophobes in the Military..what nobody is talking about: (Re: Gays in the Military..what nobody is talking about:)
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 15:21:19 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Eastern Illinois University

In article <1992Dec15.084759.10407@news.DKRZ-Hamburg.DE> k206027@smog.DKRZ-Hamburg.DE (Bakayaroo Banzai) writes:

>Gay families are certainly not "normal" in any
>statistical sense. If you are implying that "normal" means they are

    You are confusing "normal" with "common".  Gay families are certainly
not as common as mixed ones (i.e., they occur less often); that does not
speak at all to their normalcy.

>as capable of providing love, support, and shelter for their children
>as any other couple then I would say that you are probably right.

    I'm not implying that at all.  I'm stating it outright.

>As a Christian I view the sexual behavior of the parents as the central
>moral issue, not their parenting skills. 

    But the latter is the major affector of the quality of their kids'
upbringing.  Presumably, few kids witness their parents' sexual behavior.

>As i've already mentioned I don't believe that homosexuality is a
>question of orientation (at least not 100%). As for the schools
>making a moral judgement I would opt for even-handedness; if they
>don't get to promote it they don't get to condemn it either. If the

    Well, good, because that's the way it is.

>point is to get children to stop hating homosexuals (and possibly
>growing up to be bashers) I would also support it. However, this
>is something I am already teaching my son. Christians don't believe
>in beating the snot out of their neighbors because of their sexual
>practices (at least not the ones I know).

    There are many ways to gay-bash other than beating someone up.  Many
Xians might not physically abuse a gay person, but support legislation that
removes his/her civil rights.

>>you're really interested, call the NYC Board of Education and order a copy
>>of the Rainbow Program.  You may be disappointed - only a few of its 450+
>>pages are concerned with same-sex parents - but you'll have "genuine
>>information".
>
>Thanks for the information. I appreciate being able to investigate things
>for myself without filters.

    Glad to help.
-- 
   ******************************************************************
     Howard Black                             cfthb@ux1.cts.eiu.edu
     Department of Chemistry                  Eastern Illinois Univ. 
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.space,sci.space
From: eagle@garfield.catt.ncsu.edu (Daniel L'Hommedieu)
Subject: Re: Justification for the Space Program
Organization: North Carolina State University
Distribution: usa, world
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 20:46:48 GMT

gorney@picard.med.ge.com (Felix Gorney Mfg 4-6983) writes:

>: |>  	Can any of you think of any moral or philosophical justification
>: |> 	for using huge amounts of taxpayer money to fund the "space
>: |> 	program" at all?  Not counting, of course, it provides high-
>: |> 	pay, high-tech jobs for a bunch of us.
>:


>This country does not do enough basic research as it is. The space 
>program, and the defense department have done a great deal of this. 
>Their research has led to such things as the computers we are using. 
>The first electronic computers were developed by the military. I
>beleive they were using them to crack codes. 

Some of the other common household items of the day also came from the
space program--that's my understanding.  Microwave ovens, digital
watches, and calculators all come to mind.  Hey, I like my 386 too!

Daniel
--
Daniel L'Hommedieu / Junior, CSC Depatment, NCSU / eagle@catt.ncsu.edu
From: Rec.humor.funny:				   "Ich bin ein Adler"
      My unique solution to two of the world's problems:
      "Feed the Homeless to the Hungry"
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:11600 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:10079 alt.politics.clinton:18576 alt.politics.bush:14543 alt.politics.homosexuality:7971
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: antihomosexualism a phobia -- *NOT*!
From: kmitche@eis.calstate.edu (Kenneth Mitchell)
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 01:39:50 GMT
Organization: Calif State Univ/Electronic Information Services

young@ssdd475a.erim.org (Peter Young) writes:
> 
> I didn't hear about this.  Clinton loathes the military?  Why wasn't
> more made of this during the campaign?  It was probably the Pinko
> Press.  No, wait, they played up his draft status, so that can't be
> it.  I know!  It was the Rockefeller Brothers!  Right?  Where does
> this quote come from?
> 
> 
> --
> Peter Young
> young@erim.org

Clinton's letter to the ROTC colonel who got him off the hook for the
draft for that few crucial months back in 1969(?). Whenever, part of that
letter as that he "loathes the military". It was widely reported, but
nobody followed up on it; some people just don't hear things they don't
want to know.

Ken Mitchell
kmitche@eis.calstate.edu
From: krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: thEwIndBag against Motor Votor Bill
Keywords: thEwIndBag is a hate-monger!!!!
Date: 10 Dec 92 15:47:19 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson AZ

In article <daj20.723851353@junkers> daj20@amdahl.com (Daniel A Jatnieks) writes:
>krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
>
>>The problem with the motor voter bill is that it REQUIRES everyone who 
>>gets a drivers license, gets food stamps, etc., to be registered to vote.  
>>Most people believe that it only gives people the opportunity to be 
>>registered.  It does not.  These people WILL BE  AUTOMATICALLY REGISTERED. 
>
>>I am in favor of a bill which would GIVE THE OPPORTUNITY to be registered.
>
>	does the proposed bill really *require* those getting a driver's
>	license, etc. to be automatically and without choice registered
>	to vote?  or does it only provide the opportunity to also register
>	to vote at the same time as registering for something else?  the
>	latter case would be making the opportunity to register easier
>	for those who may not otherwise take the trouble.  getting them
>	to actually vote is a different matter entirely ...

YES! The Motor Voter Bill vetoed by Bush (?) mandates automatic 
registration for, not only drivers license recipients, but food stamp 
recipients and any other person on federal subsistence of any kind 
(as far as I know).  The media did a good piece of work keeping this 
info out of the limelight.

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
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:11744 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:10246 alt.politics.clinton:18734 alt.politics.bush:14613 alt.politics.homosexuality:8031
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: The Analogy Betwixt Gays & Blacks (Re: Children in Same-gender Families)
Date: 16 Dec 1992 16:37:19 GMT
Organization: Colorado Springs IT Center
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: fajita19.cs.itc.hp.com

ecl@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (Evelyn C. Leeper) writes:
> There seem to be two sets of people here--those who believe gayness
> cannot be changed and those who believe it can.
> 
> For the former, I will say that just as blacks (or Asians, or various
> other races) should not be discriminated against, neither should gays.

And most people will agree. 

> For the latter, I will say that just as Jews (or Christians, or various
> other religions) should not be discriminated against, neither should
> gays.

And most people will agree.

> particularly care why some people prefer strawberry ice cream to
> chocolate either, but in any case, it would be a singularly stupid
> issue to base hiring, promotion, housing, or public accomodations on,

Agreed. 

> and it would be considered ludicrous to say school textbooks should
> show only chocolate ice cream cones.  

Meaning....?  

Walter
From: libwca@emory.edu (Bill Anderson)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: JESUS IS THE REASON FOR THE SEASON
Date: 15 Dec 92 16:09:28 GMT
Organization: Emory University, Atlanta, GA
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3

dbernard@clesun.Central.Sun.COM (Dave Bernard) writes:
: I find it ironic that as long as a symbol is Christian, it can't be allowed by
: the government.  Yet, the economy benefits- and hence the government through
: tax revenue- from the holiday season.  In fact, the media shows no shame in
: bombarding us with tales of desperate merchants, large and small, who hope upon
: hope for us to spend lots of money during this Christian holiday.  In other
: words, the overt government sentiment is, let's pretend this Christian celebration
: does not exist, while the covert sentiment is, please, please please, O Secular
: Spirit of the Season, let people act as though it does exist.
: 
: 	Dave

Perhaps you were just being imprecise, but I haven't noticed that 
Christian symbols "can't be allowed" by the government.  Rather,
they can't be adopted by the government.
I'm really, really sick of this "Christians are a persecuted
minority" stuff.  It just ain't so, folks.  


Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton
From: stank@perrault.unet.com (Stan Knight)
Subject: Re: The Analogy Betwixt Gays & Blacks (Re: Children in Same-gender Families)
Organization: Network Equipment Technologies, Redwood City
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 02:42:17 GMT

In article <1992Dec17.150741.14224@cis.uab.edu> hamilton@hitler.chem.uab.edu () writes:
>It just occured to me that even if gays can change their orientation
>this does not make them different from people of whatever appearance,
>as witnessed by sex-change operations or Michael Jackson.  If people
                                                            ^^^^^^^^ 
>are discriminated against, it is because they stubbornly refuse to
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>change.
 ^^^^^^
>Tracy P. Hamilton

I'm just a tiny bit curious here Trac. The fault of being discriminated
against lies with the person/people who have to suffer the discrimination?
Well the next time I see a minority I guess I will just clue him in and let
him know that all he has to do is adopt the "proper" culture, the "proper"
religion and to get his skin color changed and then he'll never have to worry
about being discrimated against again. 'Course you'll have to let me know
exactly what and how to change  so I don't give out any wrong instructions. 
Did I get it right or did you really mean to say something else?


Stan Knight
|Love your server name|
From: Treble@asc.slb.com (John Treble)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Gays in Military Service - Danger Zone?
Followup-To: alt.rush-limbaugh
Date: 17 Dec 1992 19:16:18 GMT
Organization: Austin Systems Center -Schlumberger
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: asc438.asc.slb.com

As I read about the chance of gays being openly accepted into the military,
I paused to consider that officers will have to learn politically correct
orders.  I submit the following:

The battle is heated.  The commanding officer stands in the foxhole and
shouts,
  "Jones, you advance to the end of the street!  Antoine, you watch his
rear!"

(I borrow "Antoine" from "In Living Color" in this case "Men on War")
I think the snickers and sneers from the rest of the troops may just reveal
their locations and put them in harm's way!

Just a thought...

treble@asc.slb.com "My humble, but accurate, opinion does not necessarily
reflect that of my employer. I get full credit for my insightful and witty
comments!"
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:11633 talk.abortion:51976
From: sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The Ultimate Hypocrisy
Keywords: Beth, can you provide a source?
Date: 14 Dec 92 23:29:26 GMT
Followup-To: alt.rush-limbaugh
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <1992Dec13.181156.22666@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
#In article <449@blue.cis.pitt.edu> sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
#>In article <1g3b9fINNkpl@matt.ksu.ksu.edu> psb@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (Jr Phillip S Buckland) writes:
#>#	The "preferred" late-term method is as follows:
#>#
#>#	Manipulate the fetus until it has crowned (that is, so the top of
#>#	its head is partly through the cervix).  Insert a suction hose into
#>#	the soft spot in the head and suction out the brain tissue.  Continue
#>#	with either induced birth or a forceps delivery.
#>
#>Do you have a source for this?  
#>
#And if you manage to find one, kindly include gestational age of the
#fetus...

Buckland gives his source as Beth Bartley.  I hope that she'll be
able to answer the questions about this method - Buckland doesn't
want to continue this thread because people aren't nice to him in
t.a.  

I really would like to see the citation.

[Buckland's redefinition of skull deleted]

#What he seems to be saying here is that since it could eventually
#become a skull, it's a skull now. Sounds like just another variation
#on the old pro-force "since it could become a baby, it's a baby now"
#line.

Uh huh.  He just prettied it up a bit.

Susan
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:11956 alt.politics.clinton:18903