Return to BSD News archive
Xref: sserve comp.os.os2.programmer:11504 comp.os.coherent:9264 comp.os.linux:37556 comp.os.mach:2875 comp.os.minix:22108 comp.periphs:3646 comp.unix.bsd:11988 comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit:2635 comp.os.386bsd.development:683 Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.programmer,comp.os.coherent,comp.os.linux,comp.os.mach,comp.os.minix,comp.periphs,comp.unix.bsd,comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit,comp.os.386bsd.development Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!munnari.oz.au!news.Hawaii.Edu!ames!saimiri.primate.wisc.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!newsfeed.rice.edu!rice!corywest From: corywest@owlnet.rice.edu (Cory West) Subject: Re: PUT AN END TO JMONROY! (Was: QIC NEWS...) In-Reply-To: mycroft@hal.gnu.ai.mit.edu's message of 5 May 1993 05:17:58 -0400 Message-ID: <CORYWEST.93May5150159@rio-grande.owlnet.rice.edu> Followup-To: alt.politics.homosexuality Sender: news@rice.edu (News) Organization: Well, none really, but I know where my socks are! References: <C653Au.Iqy@sugar.neosoft.com> <1993May4.034429.1146@nrao.edu> <1s5o9c$j3h@hal.gnu.ai.mit.edu> <1993May4.160411.16584@nrao.edu> <1s80o6$1nlf@hal.gnu.ai.mit.edu> Date: Wed, 5 May 1993 21:01:59 GMT Lines: 39 Recently, mycroft@hal.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Charles Hannum) wrote: > Just today I picked up a copy of MIT's Tech Talk, and what did I find? > > Health Coverage Offered To Same-Sex Partners > > At first, this sounds okay; maybe even a Good Thing. But I read a > little further and find that, essentially, any two men or women living > together, not even necessarily lovers, can get the `family coverage' > plan; however, unmarried heterosexuals cannot. Who is bearing the > brunt of discrimination here? Now, I don't find your sig offensive, I think this entire thread is pretty lame (yet I'm posting to it), and I don't think you need any help in defending yourself, but, your above example is skewed and bordering on homophobic. If the above health coverage is offered to "essentially, any two men or women living together, not even necessarily lovers", then no one is "bearing the brunt of discrimination" because nothing is stopping unmarried heterosexuals from getting same-sex room mates for health coverage reasons. In reality, I doubt that coverage is offered to simply any pair of same-sex cohabitors, as you suggest. It is understandable that the requirements for same-sex couples to receive insurance are a little lax since marriage (or any other form of formal recognition) among same-sex couples is not currently legal in most of the world, making same-sex unions more difficult to define and making it difficult to ensure (or even to attempt) legal equality for same-sex couples. Same sex couples don't get a break on April 15, don't have the same legal standings in terms of matrimonial partnerships, and are denied basic rights granted to heterosexual couples and families; you tell me who is bearing the brunt of discrimination here. I urge you to be proud of who you are, but don't take for granted that everyone has the same rights accorded to you. Making this mistake will lead you down all sorts of convoluded paths of discrimination and oppression that you probably want to avoid. Cory