HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: elle@kimbark.uchicago.edu (Ellen Keyne Seebacher)
Subject: Univ. of Chicago's benefits to cover gay couples
Reply-To: elle@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 17:48:10 GMT

The following is paraphrased heavily from today's _Chicago Tribune_
article (Tuesday, 22 December 1992) -- section 2, p. 3.  Comments in
brackets are remarks by yours truly.

The University of Chicago has extended a "comprehensive array" of
benefits to same-sex domestic partners:  health insurance, library and
gym privileges, tuition benefits for partners of faculty members,
and eligibility for married student/staff housing.

The policy will take effect on 1 Feb. 1993.  Approved by the trustees
on December 7th, it's being announced only today -- the administration
wanted to "inform the faculty and staff members who had been working
on the proposal."  [Oh.  I guess that's why none of us heard about it.]
Applications will be ready on January 15th, after the "joint financial
obligations" have been "spelled out" ... "the long-term commitment has
to parallel that of married people."  They'll be stealing liberally
from the guidelines of other institutions which have preceded them, like
Stanford, which adopted a similar policy the day after our trustees did.

Though the Ad Hoc Committee on Domestic Partnership Rights had asked
them to include mixed-sex couples, the University is _not_ extending
benefits to opposite-sex domestic partners, because they have the
legal right to marry if they choose.

[This whole thing, of course, began only because a gay grad student
sued for spousal gym/library privileges under Chicago's Human Rights
Ordinance back in 1990, well after the University adopted a non-
discrimination policy; then they claimed they weren't discriminating
by sexual orientation, only by marital status, and they couldn't help
it if some of us poor queers couldn't _be_ legally married.]

Now they're casting this as an effort to "recruit and train the best
people for faculty and staff positions" [never mind students...].  
The chair of the Lesbian and Gay Faculty and Staff Organization here,
George Chauncey (an assistant professor in History), is quoted as saying:
"...We're delighted...with the fact that the administration was so
responsive...  It shows they've recognized and value our contributions
to the university community."

Chauncey also says:  "It is a real turning point nationwide.  If the
University of Chicago can do this, I think it is an indication that
anybody can."

--                    __
Ellen Keyne Seebacher \/             elle@midway.uchicago.edu
From: Furr@cup.portal.com (George Dalton Madison)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Re: penis size
Date: Sun,  3 Jan 93 19:03:27 PST
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
  <1992Dec30.200756.20218@spdcc.com> <C0530L.L7J@agora.rain.com>
  <1993Jan1.002343.8212@macc.wisc.edu>

Jess Anderson writes:
>(Brent Capps) writes: 
>>>P.S.: You weren't at Rooster Rock, that's for sure.
>>No, and now I feel more self-conscious than ever.  I feel
>>like if I'm ever at a motss-con in a clothing-optional 
>>situation that everybody's going to be staring at me,
>>checking it out.  That makes me feel like a freak!  No thank
>>you.
>
>If you let the matter plague you to such a point, there's no
>way in hell you can hold others responsible.  For better or
>for worse (I think it's for worse, but it's also a given),
>people in our culture react to exceptional people in a
>constrained and largely predictable fashion.  If you let
>that distort and otherwise afflict your life, it's your 
>choice, but it certainly won't do to hold others accountable
>for it beyond a certainly fairly limited extent.

Bravo.

As it happens, I too get my share of bizarre reactions from
people due to my well-beyond-shoulder-length hair and very
substantial beard.  I'm talking about people crossing the street
to get away from me, apparently because they think I'm a Jr.
Charlie Manson, based solely on my hair.

THIS IS *THEIR* FUCKING PROBLEM, NOT *MINE*.

I'm not going to repeat what several other people have said well
on this issue, Brent -- they're right.

 
() The greatest cunning is to have none at all.
()      -- Carl Sandburg
-----
[> George D. Madison | NBCS: B8f+t+w-e+s+k+a!cv | Just say NO to razors! <]
[> It's a BEAR thing -- you wouldn't understand. <|> furr@cup.portal.com <]
From: spriggs@sybase.com (Mark Spriggs)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Re: Outed by the 'phone company?
Date: 30 Dec 92 21:38:25 GMT
Bcc: spriggs

In article <memo.809852@cix.compulink.co.uk> dbailey@cix.compulink.co.uk writes:
>
>
>How do help and advice lines provide confidentiality for their
>callers in countries where 'phone bills itemise the numbers
>called?
>
>So people who want to call from a 'phone that is not their own -
>such as a parent's or from work - to such as an AIDS advice line
>or a lesbian or gay switchboard, may be afraid that their making
>the call will be exposed through the 'phone bill.

Having worked for 'The Phone Company' I can say that it is easy to be
outed by "Ma Bell."  Local calls are never itemized, occasionally they
are tallied by minutes/time-of-day, but without the telephone number 
attached. 

BUT, if the call is a toll call, the telephone number will appear on
the bill AND you can call the phone company and get a listing for any
number that appears on your bill.

I don't know of any phone company in the US that doesn't follow this
practice.

Be careful if anonymity is important to you.

Mark
Organization: The American University - University Computing Center
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1992 16:37:12 EST
From: <HERSCH@auvm.american.edu>
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: March on Washington

Can anyone tell me offhand the date of the big 1993 march on Washington?
I know I *live* in Washington, but that doesn't cause me to know this.

Thanks.

H.

Herschel Browne
"The" American University
From: smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Re: Private antidiscrimination policies in CO (was Re: Attention...)
Date: 1 Jan 1993 00:17:43 GMT
Organization: Colorado Springs IT Center
NNTP-Posting-Host: fajita19.cs.itc.hp.com

anderson@macc.wisc.edu (Jess Anderson) writes:
> they can get away with it, is firing an employee who's
> performing satisfactorily or better because of a
> supervisor's personal enmity.  You *have* heard of enmity
> arising from homophobia, yes?

Well, I've never personally seen it in action, but I'll take 
your word for it.  

Walter

Newsgroups: soc.motss
From: jackies@fc.hp.com (Jackie Sheddy X6958)
Subject: Re: "Civil Rights"?  or was that Special Rights?
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 10:12:48 GMT
Organization: Jackie Sheddy at not quite in limbo 
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1.3 PL6]

Michael A. Thomas (mike@gordian.com) wrote:
: In article <BzIDDD.40E@fc.hp.com>, jackies@fc.hp.com (Jackie Sheddy X6958) writes:
: > 	Apparently,  CFV (we all know who THAT  means)
: 
:     Cretins Fornicating Vigorously?
:     Can't Find Vulva?
:     Claptrap For Volk?
:     Criminals For Viciousness?
:     Cranium Found Vactated?
      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

      That's it!!!  That's them!!!


: -- 
: 
: 		Michael Thomas	(mike@gordian.com)
: 	"I don't think Bambi Eyes will get you that flame thrower..."  
: 		-- Hobbes to Calvin
: 		USnail: 20361 Irvine Ave Santa Ana Heights, Ca,	92707-5637
: 		PaBell: (714) 850-0205 (714) 850-0533 (fax)

--
Regards,

Jackie
jackies@hpxxx.fc.hp.com
Hate is NOT a Family Value!!

Newsgroups: soc.motss
From: solovay@netcom.com (Andrew Solovay)
Subject: Re: How did you find soc.motss?
Organization: People's Front of Judea
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 22:06:55 GMT

In article <1h563sINNsn2@spim.mti.sgi.com> dauber@tattoo.mti.sgi.com (Jeff Dauber) writes:
>
>I find soc.motss about the same.

"Turn left at Greenland?"
-- 
Andrew Solovay    
                "I know that, in America and under capitalism,
                 I am the freest woman in history."
                                --- Camille Paglia
From: kkenny@gems.vcu.edu (Karen Kenny aka Mel)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Re: A Taste of Culture
Date: 21 Dec 92 13:38:08 -0400
Organization: Medical College of Virginia

In article <1992Dec16.190330.21999@tc.cornell.edu>, shore@dinah.tc.cornell.edu (Melinda Shore) writes:
> 
> Too bad you're not a lesbian, or else you'd be able to
> bring in some sort of disgustingly texture-free grey
> casserole made of lentils, potatos, and rice in an
> earthenware container.

<sharp intake of breath>
MELINDA!  Don't you think you are being a bit exclusionary?!
Or do you feel like you have to like the texture and color
of _every_ dish at a potluck?!

If you are humor-impaired, tell someone _else_!

Karen
+======================================================+
                                         Karen S. Kenny
"Of course, you silly things!"      kkenny@gems.vcu.edu
                                  Medical College of VA                      
                                           Richmond, VA
+======================================================+
From: jns@roissy.umd.edu (J. N. Shaumeyer)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Re: Why not cure homosexuality?
Date: 31 Dec 92 19:40:14 GMT
Organization: Militant Homosexual Lobby, Gay Lifestyles, Inc.


Walter Smith (smithw@col.hp.com) wrote:
 
> ....  What isn't answered is, how can you 
> ever validate the claim of someone who claims to have been homosexual
> (not bisexual, or 'in the middle') who then claims to have switched 
> to being hetrosexual.  It seems any such thing is just dismissed 
> as 'well, he was kinsey-middle'.  Sort of a catch-22.  

Hon, since we recruited him, we *know*.

Besides, when you're gay, you just *presume*
that everyone else is.  It makes things much
easier.

Believe us, it's just a phase he's going through.

--jns
From: HF.SLK@forsythe.stanford.edu (Stewart Kramer)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Re: How did you find soc.motss?
Date: 21 Dec 1992 09:33:29 -0800
Organization: Stanford University
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: morrow.stanford.edu

In article <1992Dec21.063757.14583@adobe.com>,
asente@adobe.com (A Usenet Pal) writes:
>> How did you discover soc.motss? Did you find it at the same time you
>> found Usenet, or later?
>
>I followed all the discussion in net.news about the creation, and then
>when the newgroup message arrived I started reading it.  How else?

Was that in the beginning, when the net was void and without form?

I don't remember a time when I didn't know about soc.motss, though
I spent a few years without net access.
---
Stewart Kramer
From: rdonahue@spdcc.com (Bob Donahue)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Re: Miracle cure for homophobic states
Date: 31 Dec 92 03:43:03 GMT
Article-I.D.: spdcc.1992Dec31.034303.11332
Organization: insert anything here

smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes:
>d000dlphi@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu (David Speakman) writes:
>> We now enter another dream scenario sponsored by David Speakman...

>> On Jan 21, President Clinton signs an omnibus executive order outlawing
>> discrimination against the lesbigay community in all federal employment and
>> withholds federal funding from all states, municipalities and other local
>> governments with ant-gay rights laws.

>You know, that may not be a bad idea...there might be legality 
>problems with the funding thing, but does the Fed have an 
>EE statement that covers sexual orientation?  They should. 

	There's plenty of precident for the funding thing: Reagan
threatened to withhold all Fed highway funds from any state that
had a drinking age < 21... to give one example.

	The gov't has no EE statement inclusive of orientation
because homosexuals are not a protected class in the US Constitution.
(We are not covered under the 14th Amendment).  Part of the ruling
of Bowers V. Hardwick 1986 (that said that homosexuals do not have
privacy rights within their own home if they are violating sodomy
laws of the state they are in) used this fact as a basis for it.

	That paragraph is also another reason why CO:2 is frightening.
With the current SC, it is VERY VERY likely that they could rule
against us if it were brought to them!  The two rulings together
could be used to enact legislation making it a felony to have not-het
sex, and prevent people from due process!  At the worst, you could
be arrested if you were thought homosexual, tried in a kjangaroo
court (no defense) and sent to prison...

	that sounds wacky and unlikely but even this year fliers
did pop up with the quote "Execution, incarceration, and castration:
God's tools for dealing with homosexuals".  While any sane person
would dismiss such, the insane WILL use this sort of rhetoric
to gain support, and as we all know even sane people can be misled
into the wake of it (hence the passage of CO:2).

	The best solution of course is protection at hte Federal
level, and along with it, granting of equal rights and privs.
That will mean revamping how the legal system looks at marriage
(which it should anyway given separation of church and state)
in order to provide full equality to any-sex couples, etc. while
not encroaching on the more parochial churches. (In other words
church X can preach whatever it awants and can choose to
only recognize marriages between people of opposite sex and the
same eye-color, but at the civil level, Adam and Steve & Adam
and Eve have the same "rights" and legal recogniztion...)

	But that's still 50-100 years away...  More like 100
if CO:2 doesn't get fixed (neutered) soon...

BBC
Newsgroups: soc.motss
From: shore@dinah.tc.cornell.edu (Melinda Shore)
Subject: Re: Melinda's paradox
Organization: Cornell Theory Center
Date: Sat, 26 Dec 1992 13:04:14 GMT

In article <17720@umd5.umd.edu> jns@roissy.umd.edu (J. N. Shaumeyer) writes:
>So, if I asked ******* what you would say if
>I asked you whether you had a sense of humor,
>what would he say?  Or should I ask you what
>he would say if I asked him whether he were
>a liar?

The way it works is this, for example:  if ******* was on
his was to Guerneville and came to a fork in the road but
he wasn't sure whether or not the person he was asking for
directions was homosexual or not, the only way he could be
sure of taking the correct road would be to ask the person
what a homosexual would say if asked.  Then he'd take the
other fork, ensuring that he'd arrive in time for, uh,
tea.
--
       Melinda Shore - Cornell Theory Center - shore@tc.cornell.edu
From: kpm@druhi.ATT.COM (Kevin Malloy (DoD #106))
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: M/L NewsHour (Was Re: Austin, TX joins Colo. Boycott)
Date: 3 Jan 93 21:48:40 GMT

in article <1993Jan3.123539.24962@dvorak.amd.com>, tdbear@dvorak.amd.com (Thomas D. Barrett) says:
> What I find smug and hypocritical is that the CO fundies (actually
> Bush's guy in CO if I remember correctly) were complaining on the PBS
> NewsHour that the boycott goes against democracy because it forces the
> views of others around the country on to CO... THIS A@@ HAD THE NERVE
> TO SAY THAT AND YET HE AND HIS A@@ FRIENDS FORCED THEIR VIEWS ON TO
> DENVER, ASPEN, AND BOULDER!  Jeez... why can't they just let each city
> pass its own laws and leave it at that.  The guy that they interviewed
> from Bush Headquarters (forgot his name) was soooooo smug. 

The person interviewed on the MacNeil/Lehrer News Hour was Kevin
Tebedo, Executive Director of Colorado for Family Values.  He was
interviewed at CFV headquarters.  I'm not at all surprised that they
have Bush/Quayl stuff on the walls next to their YES on 2 posters.  He
wasn't Bush's "guy" in Colorado.  He is one of the most _smug_ people
I've ever had the displeasure of listening to, both in person and
through the media.  But he has his god on his side, so he knows he's
right.

The head of Colorado's GOP is Bruce Benson, and he was a supporter of
Amendment #2 also (circulated petitions, gave bucks to the effort.

  					    Kevin

Kevin Malloy  kevin.malloy@att.com  		  DoD #106  1991 BMW K75RT
633 E. 11th Ave.      __
Denver, CO  80203     \/   With Liberty and Justice for all, NO EXCEPTIONS
(303) 830-2937							  Un-Do #2
Newsgroups: soc.motss
From: rhayden@oracle.com (Ronald Hayden)
Subject: Re: The Foreskin-Impaired (was Re: Drooling over...)
Organization: Oracle Corporation, Belmont, Ca.
	<1992Dec19.014916.15129@oracle.us.oracle.com>
	<1h6fivINNp1n@uniwa.uwa.edu.au> <1992Dec22.192904.18544@netcom.com>
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1992 01:31:07 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by an unauthenticated user
              at Oracle Corporation.  The opinions expressed are those
              of the user and not necessarily those of Oracle.

In article <1992Dec22.192904.18544@netcom.com> solovay@netcom.com (Andrew Solovay) writes:

   I think that circumcision only recently (past few decades) came
   into widespread vogue. Among those who were adults during WWII
   (whether European, Australian, American, whatever), I think
   circumcision was very uncommon, except among those with religious
   reasons (e.g. Jews & Moslems).

Some people believe circumcision causes trauma and is unnecessary.
Dr. Dean Edell, the Bay Area "TV doctor" (whom I more or less
respect), occasionally bashes circumcision.

Also, some people say that the increased sensitivity due to the lack
of a foreskin makes for shorter lovemaking.

I don't know the medical facts, so I don't have an opinion.  But I do
know I wouldn't mind longer lovemaking...
--

  - Ronald Hayden

    ----------------------------------------------------------------
   | Documentation Manager, Oracle Toolkit Group                    |
   | Co-chair of Oracle Lambda, Oracle's Gay/Lesbian/Bisexual group |
   | Writer, magician, and various other things                     |
    ----------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: soc.motss
From: rjwill6@PacBell.COM (Rod Williams)
Subject: Re: Private antidiscrimination policies in CO (was Re: Attention...)
Organization: Pacific * Bell, San Ramon, California
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 19:50:00 GMT

> smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes:
>> rjwill6@PacBell.COM (Rod Williams) writes:

>> >And WHY would a company fire a good 
>> >employee *just* because he is gay?  
>> 
>> Oy!  Silly Walter -- what do you think this fuss is all about,
>> fergawdsakes?
>
>Rod,
>
>I think it was you that mentioned some cases at HP, and some 
>cases at a hospital.  I asked if you could post more details 
>on it, since I've never seen it in action.  So you've got 
>someone who *wants* to see examples of discrimination in
>action, and the best you can do is "Oy!  Silly Walter --"? 

That wasn't me.

Walter, gay people have been fighting for legal protection
from discrimination in housing, employment and public
accommodations for many years.  Not just on a whim, not just
for grins, but because that discrimination does happen to
gay people, every day, simply because of their sexual
orientation.  The inequities I've talked about at my
workplace are trivial in comparison.  I don't have to worry
about losing my job or my home -- on that basis anyway :-) --
because my employer, my city and my state have explicit
protection against that type of discrimination.  But people
with less enlightened employers, or in less enlightened parts
of the country do.  This discrimination not rational.  It has
no bearing on their abilities as an employee, or good
character as a tenant or citizen.  If you want examples, why
don't you contact the ACLU, or Lambda Legal Defense and
Education Fund (212/995-8585).  They fight these cases all
the time.
-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
rod williams -=- pacific bell -=- san ramon, ca -=- rjwill6@pacbell.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: scott@bbx.basis.com (Scott Amspoker)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Re: Why not cure homosexuality?
Date: 1 Jan 93 19:36:16 GMT
Organization: BASIS International, Ltd., Albuquerque NM USA

In article <1993Jan1.003342.11010@spdcc.com> rdonahue@spdcc.com (Bob Donahue) writes:
>jns@roissy.umd.edu (J. N. Shaumeyer) writes:
>>Besides, when you're gay, you just *presume*
>>that everyone else is.  It makes things much
>>easier.
>
>	There's a great line from "The Ritz" that comes to mind.
>
>	Abe: You guys, you think that most everyone is gay.
>	Charlie: It's lucky for you that most of us are...

Spoken by F. Murray Abraham in a somewhat different role than he
played in "Amadeus".

-- 
Scott Amspoker                       |    
Basis International, Albuquerque, NM |  Too bad ignorance isn't really
                                     |  bliss.  Then it could be outlawed.
scott@bbx.basis.com                  |
From: markw@meaddata.com (Mark Wasson)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Re: EE statements (was: Re: Attention Skiers Boycotting Colorado)
Date: 31 Dec 1992 16:03:33 GMT
Organization: Mead Data Central, Dayton OH
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: linguist.meaddata.com

In article <1992Dec31.141503.6033@tc.cornell.edu>, shore@dinah.tc.cornell.edu (Melinda Shore) writes:
|> In article <1hthe3INNa5s@hp-col.col.hp.com> smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes:
|> >snodgras@lclark.edu (Bil Snodgrass) writes:
|> >> My insurance premium is higher because I have to pay heterosexuals 
|> >> to have children.  So are the tax payers.
|> 
|> >Would you feel better if people stopped having children?  
|> 
|> Those of us who are denied things like spousal benefits for
|> our partners have good reason to question the subsidization
|> of heterosexual issue.  We'd like equity.

This is actually related to a pet peeve of mine about benefits in
general.  The company I work for is fairly generous with its benefits.
It gives us "Flexdollars" to spend on the coverage we want - if there
is anything leftover, we can buy vacation time or take it in our
paycheck.  All in all, a nice deal.  As a healthy single with no kids,
I take the biggest insurance deductables and as a result, so I do
quite nicely with the program.

The amount of Flexdollars we get is somewhat tied to our salary, but
most of the amount is tied to the presence of a spouse or children.
As a result, people who are married get more Flexdollars than people
who are single do - even those singles living with/supporting an SO,
and even when the spouse theoretically being covered is covered
through his/her own job.

The way I see it, married coworkers are being compensated more than I
am not because they necessarily work harder or put in longer hours,
but simply because they chose to get married.  Coworkers with kids
also get compensated more, simply for having chosen to have kids.
This is very much an equity issue to me.

(I would be curious to see a study of average hours/week that
compares pure singles, singles w/SOs of any sex/sexual orientation,
marrieds and marrieds with kids in similar jobs.  When I come into the
office on evenings and weekends, I see disproportionately more singles
here than I do marrieds.  If my anecdotal evidence is actually
characteristic of the big picture, the company may in fact be
rewarding lifestyle choices that result in fewer hours of work from
the employee being rewarded, creating even greater inequities.)

I'd like to see everyone here get the same amount of Flexdollars and
let them buy coverage for whomever they see fit - spouses, SOs, kids,
etc.  If their lifestyle choices and coverage decisions are such that
the Flexdollars are not enough, they can cover the extra out of their
pay.  At least this way, the company would not be rewarding any
lifestyle choices over any other.

Mark