University of South Florida to offer Domestic Partner Benefits

Sep 10, 2009 Full story: lezgetreal.com 109

The University of South Florida has announced it plans to start offering full domestic partner benefits to both heterosexual and gay employees at the university.

“We believe it’s the right thing to do, and we’ll work to make it happen this year,” said USF president Judy Genshaft during her annual state of the university yesterday.

The schools administrators and faculty members have been discussing the issue of benefits for domestic partners for about two years now, but Wednesday’s announcement by Genshaft is the first public acknowledgment that the USF is committed to providing those benefits Full Story
First Prev
of 6
Next Last

Since: Sep 09

Long Island, NY

#1 Sep 10, 2009
“We believe it’s the right thing to do, and we’ll work to make it happen this year,” said USF president Judy Genshaft during her annual state of the university yesterday.

Yes, that's exactly what it is... the right thing to do.
morgan

Miami, FL

#2 Sep 10, 2009
Benefits for domestic partners of employees is great, but I would like to know what the USF administration is doing for their LGBT students. I graduated from USF in 1969. Granted, that was a long time ago, but I was almost kicked out of school for being a Lesbian. Coming out is hard enough without having to deal with a hostile environment, especially in a place that's supposed to be nourishing and protective of the young people placed in their care. I know that college students today are better equiped to handle the world, but they need and deserve as much, if not more support as the faculty that instructs them.

“Love thy neighbor!”

Since: Dec 06

Westland , MI

#3 Sep 10, 2009
In Michigan, state assisted entities can not offer domestic partner benefits. The University of Michigan had the guts to find a way around it. GO BLUE!!!
Sadiero

Waltham, MA

#4 Sep 10, 2009
I was a faculty member at USF for 12 years and finally left the job and the state because of the anti-gay bahavior of the state legislature and Hillsborough County commission. That, combined with the lack of effective leadership by President Genshaft and the Board of Trustees at USF on LGBT and domestic partnershp issues, made me finally give up on Florida and my USF position. Florida as a whole has a long history of hostility toward gays, and it isn't changing anytime soon. Genshaft's empty promise is a holdover from years ago - no movement so far, and none expected this year either.
Angel

Jacksonville, FL

#5 Sep 16, 2009
This is so freaking awesome! USF is giving hope to those that our own government wouldn't do because their buttheads. Awesome job USF.
who cares

Largo, FL

#6 Sep 28, 2009
USF needs to stop focusing on pyscho-sexual issues and accomodations to the queer and lesbian crowd, and focus their energies more on academics, jobs for graduates, relevant cirriculum, qualified professionals, and garnering more financial support from the State and the feds

no one cares who you sleep with you crazy people ! and frankly I'm sorta sick of having it in my face, in my classroom, in religion, in community responsibilities etc, and I don't want academic institutions facilitating anything but a reasonable environment to obtain an academic education..not fomenting or supporting any lifestyle whatsover or an aberrant lifestyle and promoting it as though it is pertinent to issues such as scholarships, size of classes, pupil/teacher ratios, qualifications of faculty, graduation rates, costs per pupil, and really really important issues LIKE THAT.

Homosexuals should be left alone and let them do whatever is homosexual.

I don't go to school or a university to be constantly bombarded with homosexual agenda, heterosexual agenda or anything of the sort- nor should school be turned into a mouthpiece for any such homosexual rallying call for a homosexual agenda.

Let homosexual conduct be what it is. Schools don't need any more friggen drama, upheaval, protests, or drum 'banging'.

Let's focus on getting educated at USF, it doesn't need to evolve into some sort or platform for a 'social statement', experiment, or friggen 'cause'

Go screw whatever or whoever you want to, I want to get a reasonable return on my investment on my undergraduate or graduate EDUCATION.

Keep your sexual proclivities, lifestyle, or perversions to yourself.

“A Proud Gay Parent”

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

#7 Sep 28, 2009
who cares wrote:
USF needs to stop focusing on pyscho-sexual issues and accomodations to the queer and lesbian crowd, and focus their energies more on academics, jobs for graduates, relevant cirriculum, qualified professionals, and garnering more financial support from the State and the feds
no one cares who you sleep with you crazy people ! and frankly I'm sorta sick of having it in my face, in my classroom, in religion, in community responsibilities etc, and I don't want academic institutions facilitating anything but a reasonable environment to obtain an academic education..not fomenting or supporting any lifestyle whatsover or an aberrant lifestyle and promoting it as though it is pertinent to issues such as scholarships, size of classes, pupil/teacher ratios, qualifications of faculty, graduation rates, costs per pupil, and really really important issues LIKE THAT.
Homosexuals should be left alone and let them do whatever is homosexual.
I don't go to school or a university to be constantly bombarded with homosexual agenda, heterosexual agenda or anything of the sort- nor should school be turned into a mouthpiece for any such homosexual rallying call for a homosexual agenda.
Let homosexual conduct be what it is. Schools don't need any more friggen drama, upheaval, protests, or drum 'banging'.
Let's focus on getting educated at USF, it doesn't need to evolve into some sort or platform for a 'social statement', experiment, or friggen 'cause'
Go screw whatever or whoever you want to, I want to get a reasonable return on my investment on my undergraduate or graduate EDUCATION.
Keep your sexual proclivities, lifestyle, or perversions to yourself.
So, then I guess you would be okay with doing away with all benefits for heterosexual married couples? That would free up a lot of money. If they want to have that lifestyle, then they should do it, but support it themselves, right?
While we're at it, let's do away with married student housing, too. If they want to be married, fine, but they shouldn't get any support for it from the school.
Are we in agreement?
who cares

Largo, FL

#8 Sep 28, 2009
that's non sequitur

"marriage" between a man and a woman is not a "lifestyle" as you cleverly attempt to reduce to.........and least it is NOT SO HELD BY THE MORES AND STANDARDS THAT OUR SOCIETY HAS CHOSEN TO ESTABLISH AND HOLD..

until you change mores, the definition of marriage, and its responsibilities, legal denotations, and cultural societal connotations, any comparison about "benefits" is non sequitur..........DUH

So NO, we're not in 'agreement' because your
basis is clearly flawed..by multiple definition

Succinctly, "homosexual couples" are not "heterosexual couples who are LEGALLY RECOGNIZED AS those who choose to GET LEGALLY MARRIED viz the LAW

DUH AGAIN
who cares

Largo, FL

#9 Sep 28, 2009
institutions may indeed choose to recognize "civil unions" between HOMOSEXUALS

but no institution is required to RECOGNIZE or extend benefits to HOMOSEXUAL COUPLES ad homenim, just simply because they are "together"

we remain a nation of LAWS
who cares

Largo, FL

#10 Sep 28, 2009
I assure you, this nation (read courts, statutes, etc) viz LAWS are unlikely to "redefine" the word "marriage" to include HOMOSEXUAL laison...perhaps under vastly different legal nomenclature (such as 'union'), but not using the word "marriage"

you can forget about that...it's NOT happening in this lifetime, or the next

“Reality is better than truth”

Since: Jun 07

Indianapolis

#11 Sep 28, 2009
The only difference between your state's hetero married couples and gay couples is that the heteros are allowed to marry.

The reason the university is extending such coverage is to pull in some instructors who otherwise would teach elsewhere. Most state universities, btw, give the same benefits to gays that they do to straights.

You and your mores were not consulted. Take the hint.
who cares wrote:
that's non sequitur
"marriage" between a man and a woman is not a "lifestyle" as you cleverly attempt to reduce to.........and least it is NOT SO HELD BY THE MORES AND STANDARDS THAT OUR SOCIETY HAS CHOSEN TO ESTABLISH AND HOLD..
until you change mores, the definition of marriage, and its responsibilities, legal denotations, and cultural societal connotations, any comparison about "benefits" is non sequitur..........DUH
So NO, we're not in 'agreement' because your
basis is clearly flawed..by multiple definition
Succinctly, "homosexual couples" are not "heterosexual couples who are LEGALLY RECOGNIZED AS those who choose to GET LEGALLY MARRIED viz the LAW
DUH AGAIN

“Reality is better than truth”

Since: Jun 07

Indianapolis

#12 Sep 28, 2009
Drop out of school now. You;re wasting space that an intelligent student could use.

"Ad hominiem"? Not only is it misspelled but it makes no sense at all in this context.

We are a nation of laws. And there is no law in FL banning universities from extending benefits to gay couples.
who cares wrote:
institutions may indeed choose to recognize "civil unions" between HOMOSEXUALS
but no institution is required to RECOGNIZE or extend benefits to HOMOSEXUAL COUPLES ad homenim, just simply because they are "together"
we remain a nation of LAWS

“Reality is better than truth”

Since: Jun 07

Indianapolis

#13 Sep 28, 2009
You DO know that we already have several states that grant gay marriage, right? Not civil unions, but MARRIAGE?
who cares wrote:
I assure you, this nation (read courts, statutes, etc) viz LAWS are unlikely to "redefine" the word "marriage" to include HOMOSEXUAL laison...perhaps under vastly different legal nomenclature (such as 'union'), but not using the word "marriage"
you can forget about that...it's NOT happening in this lifetime, or the next

Since: Mar 07

The entire US of A

#14 Sep 29, 2009
who cares wrote:
I assure you, this nation (read courts, statutes, etc) viz LAWS are unlikely to "redefine" the word "marriage" to include HOMOSEXUAL laison...perhaps under vastly different legal nomenclature (such as 'union'), but not using the word "marriage"
you can forget about that...it's NOT happening in this lifetime, or the next
You must be living in an alternate universe. Several states already define same sex legal unions as marriage, and more are doing so all the time.

Since NOT doing so is illogical, and laws such as DOMA are patently unconstitutional, it's only a matter of time before such recognition is national as well.

Get over it.
who cares

Seattle, WA

#15 Sep 30, 2009
it is rightly a state issue, not a federal one

if YOU think homosexual conduct is 'normal', valid, and 'natural', then YOU are living in a warped universe.

By definition, and by biological evidence, HOMOSEXUAL CONDUCT serves no NATURAL PURPOSE, no matter how you attempt to 'spin' its obvious existence and perserverance

Aberrant sexual behavior, deviant social behavior has existed since TIME, and will continue to exist no doubt ! the mere existence of aberrant behavior does not go to its legitimacy however.

HOMOSEXUAL CONDUCT is not in the same realm of reason with the purpose of heterosexuality. It is silly to attempt to make them congruent in any civilized, normal society- but SOCIETY is GETTING MORE ABNORMAL and un-natural all the time.

Again if you hold that HOMOSEXUAL CONDUCT is normal human sexual conduct, then I believe that reasoning has no basis in biological fact.

If you think or hold that HOMOSEXUAL SEX ACTS represent normalcy in re the human condition, then I think you are warped - and terrbily so.

Having said that, it doesn't mean that HOMOSEXUALS should be disrespected or mistreated- but it doesn't mean that clear aberrant sexual behavior should be exalted either, or placed on the same 'plane' as the purpose for heterosexual marriage.......IT CLEARLY IS NOT, nor should it ever be viewed as congruent viz the purpose of human existence.

Humans exist because of heterosexuality, NOT because of HOMOSEXUAL CONDUCT.

Even an idiot should understand that logic

“A Proud Gay Parent”

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

#16 Sep 30, 2009
who cares wrote:
it is rightly a state issue, not a federal one
if YOU think homosexual conduct is 'normal', valid, and 'natural', then YOU are living in a warped universe.
By definition, and by biological evidence, HOMOSEXUAL CONDUCT serves no NATURAL PURPOSE, no matter how you attempt to 'spin' its obvious existence and perserverance
Aberrant sexual behavior, deviant social behavior has existed since TIME, and will continue to exist no doubt ! the mere existence of aberrant behavior does not go to its legitimacy however.
HOMOSEXUAL CONDUCT is not in the same realm of reason with the purpose of heterosexuality. It is silly to attempt to make them congruent in any civilized, normal society- but SOCIETY is GETTING MORE ABNORMAL and un-natural all the time.
Again if you hold that HOMOSEXUAL CONDUCT is normal human sexual conduct, then I believe that reasoning has no basis in biological fact.
If you think or hold that HOMOSEXUAL SEX ACTS represent normalcy in re the human condition, then I think you are warped - and terrbily so.
Having said that, it doesn't mean that HOMOSEXUALS should be disrespected or mistreated- but it doesn't mean that clear aberrant sexual behavior should be exalted either, or placed on the same 'plane' as the purpose for heterosexual marriage.......IT CLEARLY IS NOT, nor should it ever be viewed as congruent viz the purpose of human existence.
Humans exist because of heterosexuality, NOT because of HOMOSEXUAL CONDUCT.
Even an idiot should understand that logic
So, I can only assume you also think that any marriage that does not result in child-bearing should also not be fully recognized? After all, they are doing nothing to further human existence. Should we also not recognize any marriage that engages in any other sexual conduct besides that which might produce a child? What about those marriages that use birth control? Not only are they not furthering human existence, they are taking measures to actually prevent it.

“Reality is better than truth”

Since: Jun 07

Indianapolis

#17 Sep 30, 2009
YOU don't get to define what is normal or natural, buttercup. And there are married people who are into some pretty sick stuff but there is no requirement that they have sex in any "normal" or "natural" way. BTW--marriage is unnatural in itself; animals don't get married. Hell, marriage was created for no other reason than to define descendancy.

Here in america, we don't have to define something as natural or normal to have the right to it. Religion, for instance, is not natural in any way, and it certainly doesn't elevate society. Animals don't vote or have due process.

Civil marriage does not require that the couple have sex at all, nor does it proscribe the kinds of sex allowed. There is absolutely no difference between a gay couple and a straight couple aside from the genitalia involved.
who cares wrote:
it is rightly a state issue, not a federal one
if YOU think homosexual conduct is 'normal', valid, and 'natural', then YOU are living in a warped universe.
By definition, and by biological evidence, HOMOSEXUAL CONDUCT serves no NATURAL PURPOSE, no matter how you attempt to 'spin' its obvious existence and perserverance
Aberrant sexual behavior, deviant social behavior has existed since TIME, and will continue to exist no doubt ! the mere existence of aberrant behavior does not go to its legitimacy however.
HOMOSEXUAL CONDUCT is not in the same realm of reason with the purpose of heterosexuality. It is silly to attempt to make them congruent in any civilized, normal society- but SOCIETY is GETTING MORE ABNORMAL and un-natural all the time.
Again if you hold that HOMOSEXUAL CONDUCT is normal human sexual conduct, then I believe that reasoning has no basis in biological fact.
If you think or hold that HOMOSEXUAL SEX ACTS represent normalcy in re the human condition, then I think you are warped - and terrbily so.
Having said that, it doesn't mean that HOMOSEXUALS should be disrespected or mistreated- but it doesn't mean that clear aberrant sexual behavior should be exalted either, or placed on the same 'plane' as the purpose for heterosexual marriage.......IT CLEARLY IS NOT, nor should it ever be viewed as congruent viz the purpose of human existence.
Humans exist because of heterosexuality, NOT because of HOMOSEXUAL CONDUCT.
Even an idiot should understand that logic
2weird

Largo, FL

#18 Oct 1, 2009
does not result in child-bearing should also not be fully recognized? After all, they are doing nothing to further human existence. Should we also not recognize any marriage that engages in any other sexual conduct besides that which might produce a child? What about those marriages that use birth control? Not only are they not furthering human existence, they are
Craig in OKC wrote:
<quoted text> So, I can only assume you also think that any marriage that taking measures to actually prevent it.
I think what was being expressed is fairly self-evident- the PURPOSE of heterosexual relationships is really that of procreation-there is no 'obligation' to 'procreate'!!!! thus your statement about 'birth control' is irrelvant indeed.

The PURPOSE of the species, i.e. a man, and a woman is to have children by DESIGN of the biological condition of the genders.

Plainly put, a man has a penis, it serves essentially a narrow purpose in humans- one of its purposes is to be placed in a woman's vaginal, her 'sexual organ'. That's simply the natural order, and natural design. A man's semen contains sperm, to be used (again) by 'natural design' to fertilize a female's egg. Copulation is generally the means to this 'natural end'.

Homosexual practices and conduct involve something QUITE different....and fool sees that.

A rectum is for 'expelling human bodily waste'. A rectum is not a sexual organ for men, by definition. If you feel that placing a penis in a man's rectum (a waste outlet) is somehow tantamount to essential heterosexual activity, or is on a 'normal plane', then I would submit that you might not know why there are 'men', and why there are 'women'....or why women have 'breasts', and men don't.

Men depositing semen/sperm in another male's rectum does not represent an analagous human condition of heterosexuals.

That behavior, is, by definition, ABERRANT. Again, any fool should be able to understand the vast difference.

Male on Male rectum copulation is OBVIOUSLY not congruent with the natural design order or human beings.

And that's what many if not most (male) HOMOSEXUALS ENGAGE IN.

Clearly however, you are free in practice any sort of 'twisted logic' to justify your own twisted behavior.

I am not so stupid to buy-in to such specious notions, and tortured logic.

If you think the 'natural' place for a man's penis in in another man's rectum (mouth, ear, nose, or god knows what), then you are one aberrant, and screwed up 'human' within the species.

If you are inclined to believe that this sort of HOMOSEXUAL conduct is, in fact,'normal', I think that's warped in itself...but you are entitled to copulate with your dog if you wish, as well..and I am entitled to call that behavior 'aberrant' as well viz the true PURPOSE for heterosexuality/marriage in the first place.
2weird

Largo, FL

#19 Oct 1, 2009
btw, your comparisons are weak:

"animals don't marry" ? duh, they don't have the capacity to 'reason' either

you continue:

"Here in america, we don't have to define something as natural or normal to have the right to it. Religion, for instance, is not natural in any way, and it certainly doesn't elevate society. "

well......you have the 'right' to kill yourself to, but in many jurisdictions it's still illegal.

Religion doesn't 'elevate society'??????? are you nuts ? I'm not that 'religious', but that's about the most parochial crap I've ever read. There are simply too many examples to cite on how Religion ELEVATES community ! you seem to victim a victim of your own 'bullchit'

Marriage also exists for the protection and preservation of a FAMILY unit..it's not a 'willynilly' contrivance..our culture is DEFINED by family first, then community.

Proscribe 'sex'?? no, but society does draw lines ! you 'can' have sex with your horse, and maybe you DO...your business.....but bestiality is STILL against natural order, against the human condition, AND against the LAW.

Society is never obligated to legitimize aberrant behavior in any community.

People are never obligated to legitimize or institutionalize aberrant conduct.

“Reality is better than truth”

Since: Jun 07

Indianapolis

#20 Oct 1, 2009
First of all, not everyone believes that were were DESIGNED at all; we evolved. And we evolved as a species, meaning that most if not all biological aspects of our existence have a reason of some kind.
Man is not "natural" in any way; from the moment we donned animal skins and bent the environment to our wills, we rejected nature. Part of that rejection is the understanding that our lives have meaning regardless of our fecundity; even many heteros would deny that their relationship exists for reproductive purposes. Homosexuality has been a standard part of our species since recorded time; it cannot be bred out, and it harms no one. Gays are capable of reproduction, btw; they usually choose not to have hetero intercourse to accomplish the job.
Gay couples have kids together the same ways infertile heteros have kids; do you rail against in vitro fertilization for heteros?
The penis also excretes bodily waste, and is also a part of the erogenous system. What you evidently do not know is that the rectum is also part of that system--there are erogenous nerve bundles that connect the anorectal area to the same portion of the brain that registers all other sexual pleasure. Not only that, but any doctor can tell you that direct stimulation of the prostate--possible only through the rectum--can create the most powerful orgasms in men.
Men HAVE breasts, idiot. Some jsut like to call them "pecs" to feed their fragile ego. But we have the same structures women have; in fact, in some men, increasing female hormones can even create a form of lactation. We can also get breast cancer, something most men are apparently ignorant of. And I have to criticize breast cancer groups because they rarely bring that fact up.
You dont' have the authority to decide what the purpose of anything is. Marriage was designed to protect property rights and lineage. It was not anything like the modern institution; it was strictly a business deal between the parents of the bride and either the groom or his parents.
2weird wrote:
does not result in child-bearing should also not be fully recognized?...

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 6
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

University of South Florida Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Could Ferguson happen in Tampa? Mon chimpoutologist 9
SARASOTA-USF Sarasota-Manatee selects regional ... Sep 28 GOLDSTONE REPORT 1
Dozier Supporters Speak Out (Mar '14) Jul '14 Get a life Dozier... 7
Spring Hill resident earns 2 bachelor degrees a... May '14 BS BS MA MS PhD 2
USF cops arrest 1 in check scam involving students May '14 Ken 1
Romney: "I'll give a $1.6M reward' for Gingrich... (Jan '12) Apr '14 swedenforever 10
Letter: Cocoa Beach praised for moving to remov... (Mar '14) Mar '14 Wegher 1

University of South Florida People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE