HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org (Mike A. McAngus)
Subject: Re: Sexuality
Organization: Homebrew Virtual Reality Labs
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 01 Jan 1993 07:54:42 GMT

Paul S Galvanek (psg+@pitt.edu) wrote:
:
: In article <1992Dec30.225929.3242@nwnexus.WA.COM> elf@halcyon.com (Elf Sternb
erg) writes:
: >
: >   False.  Homosexuality is dictated by nature in creatures we agree
: >are incapable of making a conscious choice.  Why shouldn't humans be
: >just as likely to have their orientation dictated by nature?
:
: Nonsense, nonsense, NONSENSE!  The gay community it the first to argue,
: when it comes to matters like gays in the military, that homosexuality
: is less to do about sex than it has to do with "love" and relationships
: etc.

[PSGs diatribe about nature deleted]

You don't indicate the subject to which Elf is responding, but I can guess.  
Many times the people posting the most anti-gay sentiments state that 
homosexuality is not found in other animals.  Therefore it is unfair to attack 
the response to such an argument by pointing out all the other types of sexual 
practices that occure in nature.  Ridiculing the response to an assertion with 
a reductio ad absurdum argument when the response is not key to the original 
thesis is patently unfair.
-- 
Mike McAngus                    |You are a fluke of the Universe.  You have no 
mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org            |right to be here, and whether you can hear it
The Truth is still the Truth    |or not the Universe is laughing behind your 
Even if you choose to ignore it.|back.  -- National Lampoon, Deteriorata
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: wbralick@afit.af.mil (Will Bralick)
Subject: Re: Justification for the Space Program
Organization: Self-similar
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 04:43:34 GMT

In article <C01yB8.1Gx@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:
| In article <1992Dec29.232413.25117@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes:
| >(1) The US never ratified the Law of the Sea Treaty either...
| 
| However, almost everybody else did, I believe.  This makes the US a lone
| holdout against accepted international law, and there will be considerable
| pressure on it to toe the line even if it has not formally agreed.

International law is law which sovereign states choose to violate when-
ever it is perceived to be in their best interests to do so.  The UN can 
pass resolutions all day long and into the night -- they are only as good 
as the paper they are written on if they cannot be enFORCEd (by economic
or military means). 

At any rate, if the US has not signed the treaty then it is not bound by 
the treaty.  

| By
| contrast, almost nobody has ever ratified the Moon Treaty, so it can safely
| be ignored.

If we were the _only_ nation to ratify it then we would be bound by it.
Isn't sovereignty great?  


Regards,

-- 

Will Bralick			          Speaking _only_ for myself.

Standard disclaimers apply.            Void where prohibitted by law.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: cdm@pmafire.inel.gov (Dale Cook)
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 92 21:06:02 GMT
Organization: WINCO
Subject: Re: Flash! Environmentalists switch off Earth's volcanoes (was: The Fr
Summary: 
Followup-To: 
Distribution: usa
Organization: WINCO
Keywords: 

In article <1992Dec21.173951.19584@anasazi.com> john@anasazi.com writes:
>Keywords: 
>
>In article <1992Dec19.215032.18325@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
>]In article <1992Dec17.220703.410@pmafire.inel.gov> cdm@pmafire.inel.gov (Dale Cook) writes:
>]
>]>Nobody in science seriously doubts that global warming is happening.
>
>Well, in our local Geography Department, we have 2 climatologists
>that I know of that seriously doubt it: Dr. Bob Ballard and 
>Dr. Sherwood Idso. In fact, Ballard has published a book that gives an
>excellent presentation of the issue: "The Heated Debate." I recommend
>it for the science impaired (it would do Rush a lot of good to read it
>too - he is out to lunch on many environmental issues).

Do they doubt that the earth has warmed over the last century?  I doubt 
it.  Do they dispute whether the recent trend is indicative of a longer
term trend? Or that the recent data (over the last century, earth has
warmed about .6 degrees C) is nothing more than an aberration in the
longer term trend? Perhaps, that man has nothing to do with the recent
increase? Possibly that the effects over the next century of any increase
in global average temperature will not be significant?

To argue any of these points is NOT necessarily to argue that the earth
has not warmed recently or will not warm in the future.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
...Dale Cook    "I don't much care how a man prays -- there's plenty of
                 room in hell for all of us."  --- "Mad Jack" Duncan
The opinions are mine only (i.e., they are NOT my employer's)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.space,sci.space
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: Education Regarding Alternative Family Units (Re: The Analogy Betwixt Gays & Blacks (Re: Children in Same-gender Families))
Date: 29 Dec 92 20:32:41 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson AZ

In article <1992Dec29.184740.20472@lclark.edu> snodgras@lclark.edu (Bil Snodgrass) writes:
>In article <29DEC199212481513@nssdca.gsfc.nasa.gov> bwood@nssdca.gsfc.nasa.gov (William Wood) writes:
>>> 
>>>My children are a precious gift that God has given my wife and I.  We have 
>>>been entrusted with the responsibility of raising our children in a manner
>>>consistent with the teachings of our faith.  Jesus Christ is as real to us 
>>>as the keyboard that I am using at this moment.  When the school teaches that
>>>homosexuality as a valid lifestyle, it operates in direct conflict with the 
>>>values I attempt to instill within my children.  
>>> 
>>>These are my beliefs.  I don't expect you to adopt them, nor do I expect you to
>>>accept them.  All I ask in return is that you give me the same respect in
>>>return.
>
>You are doing fine to this point.  I mean so far you are asking the viewing 
>audience to respect your values.....key word here is "YOUR". 
>
>I feel that if sex education is to be taught in school it should be optional
>and it must include homosexuality as an equal sexuality.  I do feel that
>all school should be required to have Counsoling for 'sexuality confused'
>students.  I am tired of the suicides of Gay teens in this country.

How about teaching beastiality as an equal sexuality.  And are you equally 
tired of the suicides of any teens, or just gays?  If we are going to 
require counseling, why have it in the schools?  Are we doing such a great 
job teaching the 3R's that we have left over time and resources?  BTW, 
how many gay teens committed suicide last year?

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
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: bryant@neural.Kodak.COM (Steve Bryant)
Subject: Re: Lifestyle Choices (was  Re: Sexuality)
Organization: Eastman Kodak Co., Rochester, NY
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 92 14:19:01 GMT

>All I am saying is that unless you can show me that homosexual sex
>can create life (as the heterosexual sex act does) than it is an
>un-natural act. Homosexual sex uses a human output device (waste
>disposal) as an input device. This is not natural and therefore
>should not be considered normal and should not be taught as an
>alternate lifestyle. 
>
I hate it when people use the terms "natural" and "un-natural" in
their arguments. These terms are almost meaningless. Most people
internalize the concept of "natural" to mean anything that they do
is natural, and anything that they do not do, is not natural. 

If we look at the dictionary definition of natural, it means 
anything produced by nature. Every species of mammal on earth exibit
homosexual tendencies. Ergo, by definition homosexuality is "natural".

Lets look at the concept of "natural" from the perspective that you 
gave in your argument. In heterosexual foreplay did you ever use your
hand or mouth on your partners .....  If you did, I would suggest by
your definition of natural that you were being "un-natural".  

Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce)
Subject: Re: Education Regarding Alternative Family Units (Re: The Analogy Betwixt Gays & Blacks (Re: Children in Same-gender Families))
Organization: Elitist Usenet Administrators, Turkey Division
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 1992 00:45:38 GMT

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

>to a 1st grader,  
>what differences would they grasp between 2 adults who care a lot 
>about each other, but have seperate rooms, vs. 2 adults who care 
>a lot about each other, but go to sleep together at night? 

It represents the difference between Daddy's closest buddy or Daddy's
roommate and a relationship like Mommies and Daddies have with each
other.  As I said before, I grasped the fact that my mother and father
have a different relationship with each other than they do with other
people very early on, but the quantitative difference was not made
known to me until many years later.

-- 
____ Tim Pierce                / 
\  / twpierce@unix.amherst.edu /               Rocks say goodbye.
 \/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) / 
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:12063 alt.politics.clinton:18991
From: psg+@pitt.edu (Paul S Galvanek)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: The Analogy Betwixt Gays & Blacks
Date: 21 Dec 92 17:35:46 GMT
Followup-To: alt.rush-limbaugh
Organization: University of Pittsburgh


>>> > >In article <645@blue.cis.pitt.edu>, psg+@pitt.edu (Paul S Galvanek) writes
>>> > >	Blacks cannot, without much effort, change their skin colour,
>>> > >and Gays cannot change their gender attraction.
>>> 
>>That is the most ridiculous thing I have EVER read! What you're trying to


With all due respect, and despite my appreciation for all the attention 
I'm getting...

I DID NOT WRITE ANY OF THIS!

Thank you...

PSG
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: fogarty@sir-c.jpl.nasa.gov (Tim Fogarty)
Subject: Re: Sexuality
Organization: JPL, Space Imaging Radar Software Group
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 01:51:58 GMT


In article <1992Dec30.212615.9029@asl.dl.nec.com>, 
dillhoff@aslws01.asl.dl.nec.com (Doug Dillhoff) writes:
|>
|>Let me clarify this. I do not think that children should be taught
|>that the homosexual lifestyle is normal. I respect the rights of all
|>human beings, I just believe that the homosexual lifestyle is
|>wrong (IMO).
|>

What is "the homosexual lifestyle" ?

My lifestyle is no different than that of any of my coworkers.  My lifestyle is
no different than that of my brothers and sisters.  Ok, I do make more money
than they do.


--
Tim Fogarty
Sys Man and Sys Admin for the EGSE in the POCC at JSC for SRL-1, STS-59
FOGARTY@SIR-C.JPL.NASA.GOV
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:12685 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:11099 alt.politics.clinton:19386 alt.politics.bush:15257 alt.politics.homosexuality:8716
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: Education Regarding Alternative Family Units (Re: The Analogy Betwixt Gays & Blacks (Re: Children in Same-gender Families))
Date: 30 Dec 92 19:52:59 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson AZ

In article <C02sps.IG8@unix.amherst.edu> twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce) writes:
>In article <1992Dec28.150608.28353@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
>
>>Anyone have any stats?  Any examples of straight 
>>children coming from a home where the parent(s) had exhibited homosexual 
>>behavior since the child was very young?
>
>Yes.  But since the affected parties were my next-door neighbors, 
>I can't really cite any studies.  Now how about those families of
>heterosexual parents with homosexual children, eh?  Why didn't the
>sexual preference of the parents have an "enormous effect" on the
>children there?

They did have an enormous effect.  Recent educated guesses say that less than 
2% of americans are gay.  If we assume that all parents are not gay (giving 
your side the benefit of the doubt), then the result is a 98% success rate. 
That sounds like a pretty enormous effect to me.

Ga!

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:12256 alt.politics.clinton:19092 alt.politics.bush:14909 alt.politics.homosexuality:8439 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:10683
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Showering in the Military (Re: Gays in the Military..what nobody is talking about: )
Date: 24 Dec 1992 22:04:34 GMT
Organization: sgi
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com

In article <1hd4s0INN85r@hp-col.col.hp.com>, smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes:
|> john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore) writes:
|> > In article <1hatudINNep5@fido.asd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
|> > ]If we are talking about something which was never reported, where you
|> > ]won't reveal who was involved, then we are not left with much.   All
|> > ]we are left with is an allegation, and as we have seen recently, allegations
|> > ]are a dime a dozen, and hard facts are difficult to come by.
|> > 
|> > In other words, you don't believe the various people who have reported
|> > these events bu(t) who chose to protect the privacy of those involved. 
|> 
|> I wonder if Mr. Livesay is equally suspicious of the recently reported 
|> stats in Colorado that say attacks on gays are up something like 4-fold 
|> since the passage of amendment 2?  Or is that *different*? 

Why would I be suspicious of *reported* incidents?    If such incidents
have been reported to the police, then they are on the same footing as
other crime statistics.

If someone claims increased attacks on Gays, but adds that no-one ever 
reported them, then I would be just as sceptical as when someone claims
Gay sexual harrassment in the military, but says it was never reported.

Maybe Mr Smith missed something I said yesterday, so I'll say it again.
Formal reporting systems exist not only to protect victims, but also to
protect people who are accused.

What would we say if the Feds announced that Americans of Norwegian
descent had been involved in a series of Bank frauds, but that they,
the Feds, had decided not to prosecute, to save everyone a lot of
embarrassment.   Instead, they would simply ban Americans of Norwegian
descent from the Banking Industry.

I don't know about Mr Smith, but I would say "Put up or shut up".
Either give us the facts and try the accused, or stop using unreported
incidents as a way of victimizing a minority.

jon.

PS: As far as I know, Americans of Norwegian are as honest as the day. 
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: FIELD1@NIEHS.bitnet (Jack Field)
Subject: Re: RUSH=FAG!
Organization: NIEHS/DIR/SCL
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 12:23:33 GMT

In article <2827.97.uupcb@hal9k.ann-arbor.mi.us>
greg.mable@hal9k.ann-arbor.mi.us (Greg Mable)  writes:
>Does the big guy ever get on this conference or is he too fat
>and stupid to use a computer?  I heard he's gay and his lover
>is a black man (and a democrat)!  Hope he uses a condom!
>---
> . Cam-Mail . WNET:The 4th Dimension (517)546-3948  Howell, Mi
>        
>----
>+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
>| HAL 9000 BBS +1 313 663 4173 or 663 3959 | Four 14.4k v.32bis dial-ins |
>| Public Access QWK-to-Usenet gateway running PCBoard 14.5a/E10/MULTITASK|
>+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
>
I would never engage you in a battle of wits, sir.
I refuse to fight unarmed people.

Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce)
Subject: Re: Education Regarding Alternative Family Units (Re: The Analogy Betwixt Gays & Blacks (Re: Children in Same-gender Families))
Organization: Elitist Usenet Administrators, Stuff and Nonsense Division
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 14:10:40 GMT

In article <1992Dec28.150608.28353@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:

>Anyone have any stats?  Any examples of straight 
>children coming from a home where the parent(s) had exhibited homosexual 
>behavior since the child was very young?

Yes.  But since the affected parties were my next-door neighbors, 
I can't really cite any studies.  Now how about those families of
heterosexual parents with homosexual children, eh?  Why didn't the
sexual preference of the parents have an "enormous effect" on the
children there?

-- 
____ Tim Pierce                / 
\  / twpierce@unix.amherst.edu /               Rocks say goodbye.
 \/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) / 
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,soc.college
From: greg_bradt@msmgate.mrg.uswest.com (Greg Bradt aka The Lensman)
Subject: Re: Discrimination
XXXDate: Thu, 31 Dec 92 22:00:37 GMT
XUserAgent: Nuntius v1.1.1d16
XXXMessageID: <A768BB95D8010614@greg_bradt.mrg.uswest.com>
Organization: US West Marketing Resources
NntpPostingHost: greg_bradt.mrg.uswest.com
Date: 31 Dec 92 22:01:56 GMT

In article <C04vuJ.6E5@andy.bgsu.edu> A.P.K., jnomina@andy.bgsu.edu writes:
>      Hopefully, my predicament is fairly clear at this point.
> Is it considered sexual discrimination not to be hired on the
> grounds of having longer hair than is deemed appropriate?  Am
> I correct in asserting myself in such a manner, or should I
> conform to the standards of this society?  Couldn't it be
> considered a form of stereotyping that warrents such behavior
> against me on the mere grounds of length of hair?  I mean,
> I'd pass any drug test, I've nothing to hide.  I only grew my
> hair long again to avoid the temptation which just 15 years
> ago came from the opposite direction of HAVING longer hair.
> Well, any comments or such are obviously being solicited, so
> would be most welcome.

In answer to your first question... No, I don't think you have grounds for
any sort of charge of discrimination, certainly not sexual discrimination.

To the 2nd question... You are only obliged to conform to the standards of
any "society" (including the workplace) if you want to be accepted into it. 
Employers can "discriminate" in any way they want to, as long as it is not
expressly prohibited by law, and as long as they do it consistently.

Yes, you are dealing with a stereotype, but one that you really can't do
much about, except to seek out an employer who doesn't have such arbitrary
rules about appearance.  They =are= out there... I know, I work for one.

Greg Bradt aka ()The Lensman()

greg_bradt@msmgate.mrg.uswest.com | tFreedom means sometimes
Genie: G.BRADT                    |   having to put up with
Compuserve: 70206,172             |   things that really
BBS: (303)290 9243                |   piss you offa.
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:12617 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:11036 alt.politics.clinton:19338 alt.politics.bush:15196 alt.politics.homosexuality:8672
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 15:32:59 GMT
Organization: Colorado Springs IT Center
NNTP-Posting-Host: fajita19.cs.itc.hp.com

rj24@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Robert  Johnston) writes:
> problem is that youimplied that you believe that religion is the 
> reason for monogamy, and ignored the fact that there are obvious
> social and emotional reasons for one to enjoy a monogamous relationship.
> By blinding yourself to these reasons, you show yourself for the fool you 
> are.

Did I say that?  I *asked* why he thought monogamy is the way to go; 
I didn't pass judgement on his reasons, or try to force mine on him. 
The 'social and emotional reasons' are obvious to me, I wanted to hear 
his view.  Your *obvious* anti-Christian biases is causing you to see 
things that aren't there, Rob.  

> Should a black man retain the friendship of a KKK member? Should a Jew
> befriend a Nazi? Should Salman Rushdie crave the Ayatollah's 
> friendship?
> 
> When someone says that people of my type are not worthy of life, I do not
> make that person my friend. This is exactly the attitude of many christians
> towards homosexuals.

Not worthy of life?  Get a grip.  If that were the case, you wouldn't be able 
to openly post that you are gay and live to tell about it.  That is just plain 
*absurd*.  There's no doubt that homosexuality is looked down upon, but 
'not worthy of life'??  And comparing Nazi-Jew with Christian-Gay?  Ppfftt...
How can you possibly believe so many people hate you to that degree, and
not lose your sanity?  If 'homophobe' is considered an appropriate term 
for someone who 'dislikes' homosexuality, then there needs to be a stronger 
term for those who have paranoid delusions that Christians think you're 
not worthy of life, and would do to you what the Nazis did to the Jews. 
If that isn't paranoid-phobic.....................

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