HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
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: 31 Dec 1992 23:35:16 GMT
Organization: Colorado Springs IT Center
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: fajita19.cs.itc.hp.com

stank@perrault.unet.com (Stan Knight) writes:
> I have been following this newsgroup literly since day one. From many of
> the post that I have read and from a whole lot of private e-mail discussions
> it has become painfully clear that Walter is right on this one. For many
> sex and morality seem to be one. 

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

> It has also become clear that this always 
> stems from a single thought. That being that sex is a bad, dirty thing that is
> unfortunitly necessary for keeping the race going. 

Not exactly, see above.  I see nothing inherintly 'dirty' about sex, nor do 
most people I know...there's always a few, but that doesn't make it the typical 
view.  It *is* neccesary to keep the race going.  

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

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

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

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some of my archaic, outdated views on things?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

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

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

Walter

Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:12350 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:10767 alt.politics.clinton:19156 alt.politics.bush:14958 alt.politics.homosexuality:8476
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: 28 Dec 1992 16:46 CST
Organization: Texas A&M University, College Station, TX
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: zeus.tamu.edu

In article <1992Dec28.180753.664@porthos.cc.bellcore.com>, wgb3@pyuxf.uucp (25336-buoni) writes...
| 
|What about children who get teased because their parents are drug addicts,
|child molesters, or just enjoy a quite evening with a farm animal or two?

	It depends.  Do enough people think that drug addicts and child
molesters are persecuted unfairly or unnecesarily?  Probably not.


|I am willing to allow you the right to live your life the way you see fit, even
|if I believe that your chosen lifestyle is immoral and deplorable!  It is your
|life, you make the choices AND you deal with the concequences!!

	If the world could depend on you to teach your children to follow
your example of tolerance, there would be no need for teaching it in 
school.  


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|HOWEVER, I will not allow you to teach my children ideals which are in direct 
|conflict with our family beliefs.  Introduce the curriculum in public schools, 
|I'll put my kids in private school.  Force it on the private schools, and I 
|teach them at home.  Try to bring it into my home and I'll meet you at the door
|way, my NRA approved home protection kit at my side!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

	If the government were interested in forcing a curriculum in your
home, let me assure you that they would bring more firepower than you.

	As it is, the issue of religious freedom is contradictory to public
education unless public education can accomodate all religious beliefs.  
Public education usually fails at this.  This issue has been mulled over
many times.  There's never a principled solution.  It's simply a matter
of concessions.

     ____                _
    /    )               /          
   /    /               /       
  (____/   ___     ___ /   ___,    ___   ,___ 
__    /   ____)   /   /   (__     /   )  /   )
 /   /   /   /   /   /       )   /   /  /   /     
(___/   (___(_  (___(_  (___/   (___/  /   (__
From: rovero@skye.oc.nps.navy.mil (Josh Rovero)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: No consensus on Global Warming (was Flash! Enviro...)
Keywords: global warming
Date: 22 Dec 92 20:08:21 GMT
Organization: Naval Postgraduate School,Monterey CA

In article <1992Dec21.205006.17535@pmafire.inel.gov> cdm@pmafire.inel.gov (Dale Cook) writes:
> From what I've read, the debate centers around the following
>questions (primarily):
>
>- Is the observed trend actually an emerging long-term trend?  Or, is
>  it a temporary blip?
>
>- Given the current recent trend, what will the magnitude be of any
>  future warming?
>
>- What will be the effects (if any) be on climate and weather?
>
>- Is the observed trend caused by man?
>

Yup.  Agreed.  Valid questions all.  The last one is VERY important, and
has NOT been answered (with any statistical validity) to date.

There's not much agreement on the first point either.  The existing 
instrument record is at most a few hundred years; most non-instrument
measures (tree rings, isotope ratios, etc) don't give us the temporal,
spatial, or climate property (temp, rainfall, etc) resolution that
we'd really like.  

GLOBAL warming is NOT a fact.  It is a hypothesis, yet to be proven.


-- 
Josh Rovero   (rovero@oc.nps.navy.mil) | or Internet 5346p@cc.nps.navy.mil 
Department of Oceanography, Code OC/Rv |      Bitnet 5346p@NAVPGS 
Naval Postgraduate School              |              
Monterey, CA  93943   (408) 646-2084   |
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: shallit@graceland.uwaterloo.ca (Jeffrey Shallit)
Subject: Re: Education Regarding Alternative Family Units (Re: The Analogy Be
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 18:14:12 GMT

In article <dlhanson.48@nap.amoco.com> dlhanson@nap.amoco.com (David L. Hanson) writes:
>
> Be assured that there are no sodomites, socialists, or
> any species of liberal in our home. Only fundamental Christian parents
> teaching the children to love their enemies and to hate their enemies'
> wretched sins...

>
>I stand for my Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, unashamedly as He gives me
>grace. God has told mankind how to live and how to be saved in His Holy
>Word, the Bible. Man may obey Him and become His children or they are
>His enemies.
>
>"Blessed are you when they revile and persecute you, and say all kinds of
>evil against you falsely for My sake.  Rejoice and be glad, for great is
>your reward in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before
>you."  Matthew 5:11-12	
>============================================================================
>David L. Hanson
>Naperville, IL
>

What a terrible thing this "Christianity" must be, that it should drain
your mind and replace it with such intolerance...

Jeff Shallit

Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:12492 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:10913 alt.politics.clinton:19232 alt.politics.bush:15065 alt.politics.homosexuality:8560
From: ceb@dbrus.Unify.Com (Caroline E. Bryan)
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: 30 Dec 92 17:48:52 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: /usr/lib/news/organization

In article <1992Dec28.150608.28353@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
>In article <1992Dec26.090633.11646@fcom.cc.utah.edu> freier@mail.physics.utah.edu (rodney james freier) writes:
>>
>>>> It does exactly bring into question the activities in the bedroom, because 
>>>> sexual preference is a direct correlation with same-sex parents.  Please, 
>>>> show me 3 same-sex couples who are heterosexual.
>>
>>Well, let's see.... I could 'show' you some, but you don't live in my 
>>neighborhood, so... howabout the TV examples?  "Kate & Allie", "My Two Dads",
>>and "Full House" (oops, that's a same-sex triple)....
>>
> ... I should have better defined what I meant in my original post by
> "same-sex" couples.  I meant only (or mostly) homosexual couples ...

Is this how your original post should have read?
"Please, show me 3 same-sex homosexual couples who are heterosexual."

This thread has become absurd.

Carrie		ceb@rechenau.unify.com	x6244		---------------------+
|   "Technical work needs reviewing for the same reason that pencils need    |
|   erasers."			- Daniel P. Freedman & Gerald M. Weinberg    |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: wgb3@pyuxf.uucp (25336-buoni)
Subject: Re: Education Regarding Alternative Family Units (Re: The Analogy Betwixt Gays & Blacks (Re: Children in Same-gender Families))
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 92 18:07:53 GMT

From porthos!walter!uunet!caen!nic.umass.edu!news.amherst.edu!twpierce Mon Dec 28 13:02:15 EST 1992

In article <1h9s4gINNikg@hp-col.col.hp.com> smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes:

[discussion of non-romantic same-sex childcare situations]

>>Which is why it has been suggested that the book drop the 'daddy and his 
>>roommate go to bed together' and keep the rest...

>Probably because very few cases have been cited of a child being
>teased or antagonized at school for being raised with her father and
>her uncle, or by her mother and her mother's best friend.

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

What about children who get teased because their parents are drug addicts,
child molesters, or just enjoy a quite evening with a farm animal or two?

I am willing to allow you the right to live your life the way you see fit, even
if I believe that your chosen lifestyle is immoral and deplorable!  It is your
life, you make the choices AND you deal with the concequences!!

HOWEVER, I will not allow you to teach my children ideals which are in direct 
conflict with our family beliefs.  Introduce the curriculum in public schools, 
I'll put my kids in private school.  Force it on the private schools, and I 
teach them at home.  Try to bring it into my home and I'll meet you at the door
way, my NRA approved home protection kit at my side!

Just my $0.02.

Bill 
my opinions are my own!
From: libwca@emory.edu (Bill Anderson)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Columbus vs Indians (was Re: PC lives)
Date: 28 Dec 92 17:48:10 GMT
Organization: Emory University, Atlanta, GA
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3

dbernard@clesun.Central.Sun.COM (Dave Bernard) writes:
: 
: Actually, the reports I've read indicate that the missionairies were very
: concerned with the Indians, at least those who converted and were under
: their charge.  There are constant reports of their complaints to the king
: regarding ill-treatment of Indians by the civil authorities & armies.  Like
: missionaries- medical, spritual, teaching- everywhere, they seem to have taken
: the welfare of their people very seriously.
: 
: 	Dave

Some of them did.  Most of our knowledge of Spanish attrocities in
the new world comes from priests wh protested against it; this
attitude certainly wasn't universal among the clergy, however.
Many of them used Indians as slave labor at their missions, and
many of them persecuted Indians who refused to convert.  Whether
the conversions themselves were harmful is an open question, but
the priests can't really be blamed for that; they truly thought 
they were doing good by replacing indiginous superstitions with
their own.  
The entire clash of cultures which resulted from Columbus'
discoveries is enormously complex, and it's really silly to
break it down into a Good Natives vs. Bad Europeans kind of 
thing, but since we spent hundreds of years casting it as a
Good Europeans vs. Brutal Savages episode, the backlash was
probably inevitable.  With any luck, it'll fade, and we'll
be able to view the whole thing with a modicum of objectivity
some day.
And monkeys might fly out of my butt...

Bill 
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.space,sci.space
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Subject: Re: Breeder reactors (was Re: Justification for the Space Program
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group
Distribution: usa, world
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 06:54:26 GMT

In article <1992Dec20.044836.26997@seq.uncwil.edu> session@seq.uncwil.edu (Zack C. Sessions) writes:
>bboerner@novell.com (Brendan B. Boerner) writes:
>
>>Speaking of breeder reactors, why doesn't the U.S. have more of
>>them?
>
>Because they're too damn dangerous.

Hardly. The Candu thermal breeder is about the closest thing we 
have to a passively safe system. Hell they let unsupervised
college students run them. The reason breeders aren't widely
used is that uranium is $10 a pound. It would have to be $100
a pound before breeders break even on costs.

Gary

-- 
Gary Coffman KE4ZV          |    You make it,     | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary
Destructive Testing Systems |    we break it.     | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary
534 Shannon Way             |    Guaranteed!      | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary      
Lawrenceville, GA 30244     |                     | ke4zv!gary@gatech.edu
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:12640 alt.politics.clinton:19356
From: psg+@pitt.edu (Paul S Galvanek)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Education Regarding Alternative Family Units (Re: The Analogy Betwixt Gays & Blacks (Re: Children in Same-gender Families))
Date: 31 Dec 92 16:52:35 GMT
Followup-To: alt.rush-limbaugh
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <1992Dec31.062907.6352@microsoft.com> philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara) writes:
>    I don't think anyone is asking for the moral aspects be
>examined in the sex ed course.  All anyone is asking for is
>equal time.

Simply placing homosexuality along side heterosexuality in an "equal time"
is a defacto value assessment.  By giving equal time you're in effect
saying there is no difference in the two.  There is no reason what so ever
to teach homosexuality other than for the purpose of values indoctrination.

Why do we cover heterosexuality in these courses?  In the hopes of preventing
unwanted pregnancies, see kids stick this in here get a baby - bad, don't do
it, if you do wrap this in one of these before before you stick - not great
but better than nothing.  Can't cover the subject without talking about
heterosexual behavior, it's that simple.  

The subject of STDs can easily be covered without ever specificly making
sexual orientation an issue.  After all these are the two reasons that
were used to justify sex ed  in the first place, what more need there be?

You simply can't introduce homosexuality as a topic with out discussing
sex for sex sake or values defining.  What other possible reason could
you give to discuss the subject.

PSG 
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: briand@anasazi.com (Brian Douglass)
Subject: Re: Sexuality
Organization: Anasazi Inc Phx Az USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 23:37:32 GMT

In article <1992Dec30.200357.21464@lclark.edu> snodgras@lclark.edu (Bil Snodgrass) writes:

[stuff deleted]
>
>Okay....Now remember I am the person who supports you and your individule
>rights.......Now are you willing to allow a class on sexuality that
>shows homosexuality and heterosexuality in the same unbiased light, a
>class that would be optional????

Why would homosexuality or hetrosexuality have to be taught?  That is if
the class focused solely on the biology of human reproduction, the means of
suppressing such reproduction, and the types and symptoms of diseases
transmitted through such reproduction, moral questions regarding sexuality
can be dealt with in a psychology class.

At the public high school I went to, Sex-ed was a 6 month course taught by
a biology teacher.  The class was taught in a very clinical manner
resticted to information of only biological content (reproduction,
pregnancy prevention, disease control) and it was required.

Sexuality, as part of Psychology was reserved for Junior's and Seniors, and
you had to have parental permission to take the optional course.  Once in,
everything was open for discussion, much to consternation of the
administration.

>
>Bil Snodgrass III
>
>>
>>
>>-- 
>>Steve Giammarco/5330 Peterson Lane/Dallas TX 75240
>>marco@sdf.lonestar.org
>>loveyameanit.


Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: session@seq.uncwil.edu (Zack C. Sessions)
Subject: Re: Flash! Environmentalists switch off Earth's volcanoes (was: The Fr
Organization: Univ. of North Carolina @ Wilmington
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 1992 04:00:52 GMT

john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore) writes:

>No, the bulk of the debate is on whether anthropogenic effects WILL cause
>global warming - as predicted by global models. There are few (VERY few)
>who argue that the record for the last 100 years supports ANY global
>warming hypothesis!

Not true. I can provide numerous references which appear to dispute this
claim.

>Fine, but you need to define your terms. This is a POLITICAL talk group
>and thus I assumed that you were referring to the political subject of
>global warming.

This is a political talk group?!? That's news to me! I thought it was a
group for Rush Limbaugh worshippers and detractors to argue with each
other.

-- 
Zack Sessions
sessions@seq.uncwil.edu
University of North Carolina at Wilmington (Alumnus)
"Good health is merely the slowest form of dying."
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: philipla@microsoft.com (Phil Lafornara)
Subject: Re: Sexuality
Date: 01 Jan 93 02:30:13 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation
Distribution: usa

In article <1992Dec31.140107.15228@asl.dl.nec.com> dillhoff@aslws01.asl.dl.nec.com (Doug Dillhoff) writes:
>In article <1992Dec31.013945.14341@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> cfthb@ux1.cts.eiu.edu (Howard Black) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec30.194335.8233@asl.dl.nec.com> dillhoff@aslws01.asl.dl.nec.com (Doug Dillhoff) writes:
>>
>>   [concerning whether homosexuality is a choice or not; DD asserts the
>>former]
>>
>>>I didn't say they were opinions and not facts, you did. I have read
>>>articles that support what I wrote.
>>
>>    Please cite them.  I know that everything in print is right, and
>>anxiously await your sources.
>
>I do not maintain a file of everything I have read, however, do as I
>did and visit your local library and do some research. If I do come
>across them again I will post the sources.
>

     In other words, "You'll just have to take my word for it."

				-Phil


-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phil Lafornara         				1 Microsoft Way         
philipla@microsoft.com				Redmond, WA 98052-6399 
Note:  Microsoft doesn't even _know_ that these are my opinions. So there.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: greg_bradt@msmgate.mrg.uswest.com (Greg Bradt)
Subject: Re: antihomosexualism a phobia  *NOT*!  *NOT*!
XUserAgent: Nuntius v1.1b3
Organization: US West Marketing Resources
NntpPostingHost: greg_bradt.mrg.uswest.com
Date: 22 Dec 92 18:08:23 GMT

In article <casivils.724976979@node_508ba> craig sivils,
casivils@lescsse.jsc.nasa.gov writes:
>In <Jym.18Dec1992.1224@naughtypeahen> Jym Dyer <jym@mica.berkeley.edu>
writes:
>>=\= But homophobia also includes "just feeling that it's wrong,"
>>if such is irrational.  And what could be rational about an
>>aversion to something that's none of your business and doesn't
>>involve you?
>
>LOGIC FLAW!!!!!!
>Is this the new scale for morality?  If it doesn't effect you then you
>have no right do decide if it is right or wrong?  Then any successful murder
>can't be wrong because the killer did it and the victim is gone.  (Yes, the
>example is extreme but the fundamental logic is the same, this is my life
and
>you should accept anything that I decide to do for myself).  

The point was incompletely stated.  If it doesn't effect =anybody= who does
not choose to be involved, then, indeed, you have no ethical right to decide
if it is "right" or "wrong".  Some relatively extreme religions maintain
that they have a "moral" right to do so, but those religions are, by this
evaluation, unethical.

>I may be so irrational as to take the bible at face value and when it says
>that homosexuality is wrong, thats enough for me.

This is a form of irrationality that you are perfectly entitled to. 
However, to impose this irrationality on anybody who does not chose it is
unethical and unacceptable.

>Now, please tell me what
>phobia it is, to group me into a general group and make condescending and
border
>line rude remarks about my group just on the basis of my religion.

Homophobia is not based in religion, but some religions do tend to foster
it.  For example, to suggest that homosexuality is "the work of the devil"
or some form of "demonic posession", or any of a variety of other mystical
characterizations, does encourage an irrational aversion to the homosexual.

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: dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Columbus vs Indians (was Re: PC lives)
Date: 30 Dec 92 23:26:11 GMT
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder CO

In article <1hsc58INNhtd@cronkite.Central.Sun.COM> dbernard@clesun.Central.Sun.COM writes:
>
>I don't know of any school, history books, courses, that glorify and celebrate
>the conquest and destruction of native cultures, so we're safe there.

I know some Indians that could describe some to you.
>
>On the other issue, giving back "some land," from where do we get this land?

National forest land would be a good start.

>National parks, city halls, your back yard?  To whom do we give it- individuals,
>tribes?  If an individual is 1/4 Aztec, does he get a piece?  What if "some" is
>not enough?  Since this is a thorny issue, how should it be addressed?

Most tribes have representative councils.  Most tribes had communal land
so we needn't worry about individuals.
>
>Since the main theater of operations of the Conquistadores was Mexico, the 
>Caribbean, and South/Central America, how can the US give that land back to
>whomever?

That's not our problem.  U.S. citizens should worry about land pertaining
to treaties that the U.S. signed.
>
>Dave


-- 
==============================================================================
A thought for the holidays:
   "Wine is living proof that God loves us and likes to see us happy"
	- Benjamin Franklin			dean@vexcel.com
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh