NationStates Jolt Archive

Here is a question where I don’t actually have a side picked (Gasp I know)

But a recent incident locally made me think of it..

Should Homosexuality be a determination on housing placement like Sex or (at our school ) smoking preference.

The reason I ask this … when being housed in a small room with someone for 8 months out of the year most people want to feel comfortable with that person. While I personally would have no problem some people would find possible sexual attraction disconcerting in a roommate, I know I had enough of an issue with that from a crazy female roommate (in apartment not dorm setting).

I don’t know part of me understands why and realizes that roommates have to be comfortable with each other to make things work and something like that could make as big of difference in that as Age Sex and Smoking preferences (all criteria for housing placement as is)

I guess I just wanted to see what NS general would thing (poll coming)

Edit: ok I am going to try and stop some of the misunderstanding

My point boils down to this (but has gotten tied up with the homosexual discussion) Should anyone be forced to room with someone who finds them sexually attractive?

Weather that be gay and gay or gay and strait

Is this another case of straight people flattering themselves vainly by thinking they'd be so attractive gay people would want to fuck them?

Is this another case of straight people flattering themselves vainly by thinking they'd be so attractive gay people would want to fuck them?
Um this is a case of a bisexual trying to understand…. That’s why I said POSSIBLE attraction

Putting a gay dude in with a raving homophobe may make a great sitcom, but I doubt it would be much good for campus accomodation.

Um this is a case of a bisexual trying to understand…. That’s why I said POSSIBLE attraction

And how would you weed out these sex-crazed homosexualists with a straight fetish from infiltrating the, oh, so coveted rooms of pimple-faced, hairy-palmed teenagers?

Here is a question where I don’t actually have a side picked (Gasp I know)

But a recent incident locally made me think of it..

Should Homosexuality be a determination on housing placement like Sex or (at our school ) smoking preference.

The reason I ask this … when being housed in a small room with someone for 8 months out of the year most people want to feel comfortable with that person. While I personally would have no problem some people would find possible sexual attraction disconcerting in a roommate, I know I had enough of an issue with that from a crazy female roommate (in apartment not dorm setting).

I don’t know part of me understands why and realizes that roommates have to be comfortable with each other to make things work and something like that could make as big of difference in that as Age Sex and Smoking preferences (all criteria for housing placement as is)

I guess I just wanted to see what NS general would thing (poll coming)

Well, they shouldn't be given a roommate or a neighbor that hate gays.

And how would you weed out these sex-crazed homosexualists from infiltrating the, oh, so coveted rooms of pimple-faced, hairy-palmed teenagers?
Um same way smoking preferences is done they either fill it out on their app or they don’t … if they don’t they go through the trouble of hiding it so be it.


I don’t know maybe it should be left to the RAs to handle only if it comes up and only if it is an issue that may work too. I was just curious

If your uncomfortable with you're roomate, for whatever reason, find another one. It's not hard. Gay people and straight people need to learn how to get along. These homophobes are not going to go through their lives without incountering different people. They need to know how to tolerate those people, especially in a place such as college.

Here is a question where I don’t actually have a side picked (Gasp I know)

But a recent incident locally made me think of it..

Should Homosexuality be a determination on housing placement like Sex or (at our school ) smoking preference.

The reason I ask this … when being housed in a small room with someone for 8 months out of the year most people want to feel comfortable with that person. While I personally would have no problem some people would find possible sexual attraction disconcerting in a roommate, I know I had enough of an issue with that from a crazy female roommate (in apartment not dorm setting).

I don’t know part of me understands why and realizes that roommates have to be comfortable with each other to make things work and something like that could make as big of difference in that as Age Sex and Smoking preferences (all criteria for housing placement as is)

I guess I just wanted to see what NS general would thing (poll coming)
I'm all for letting students have more control over who they select for a roommate. I was really pissed off to find out that my own school would not allow me to have a male roommate, since I was extremely uncomfortable with the idea of sharing a room with another girl.

I also found it hilarious (and supremely stupid) that my school still opperated under gender-based curfew policies. For instance, as a girl, I could not have a male guest stay the night in my room unless I got a male friend of mine to "cohost" my guest. The idea was that my male guest wouldn't actually stay in my room over night, but would actually spend the night in the male friend's room. However, I could have a female guest spend the night whenever I wanted. Male students had to endure the same stupidity if they wanted to have a female guest.

This was all supposedly in place to prevent "fraternization" (yes, that is the term our Dean used), despite the fact that our dorms and dorm floors were co-ed. So you couldn't have a male guest from a DIFFERENT dorm come stay with you, but there was nothing to stop you from "fraternizing" with a dude on your floor. And, of course, gay students would face no restrictions for their "fraternizing."

Would they get a choice if they wanted to be put into the homohouse, or would they be forced to live there if it was known they were gay?

:confused:

I think it's a bad idea, it seems that it would be something where you would be like "all the gay people in that building", it just seems wrong.

But I am straight so I don't know.

Seperating on gender lines I am okay with, but by sexual preference, not so much.

On the application form, all sorts of things should be asked. Like sexuality, race, likes, dislikes, etc....Of course to answer these questions should be optional. Then you should be able to choose your rommate according to your own parameters. For ex: white str8/bi female (opposite sex roommates should be allowed). And the management can find a suitable roommate for you based on application forms...

Um same way smoking preferences is done they either fill it out on their app or they don’t … if they don’t they go through the trouble of hiding it so be it.

Why would anyone volunteer for discrimination?

I don’t know maybe it should be left to the RAs to handle only if it comes up and only if it is an issue that may work too. I was just curious

Why is this only set up to "protect" the sensibilities of straight people? What about the gay people who get forced to share a room with another gay person - they suddenly don't have to worry about sexual advances by the other room mate? Why would a gay person be more comfortable with sharing a room with someone who could find them attractive than a straight person? Gay people don't need to be "comfortable" in not having to "worry" about sexual advances, but straight people do?

Is this another case of straight people flattering themselves vainly by thinking they'd be so attractive gay people would want to fuck them?

Maybe it's a case of "keep them away from me so I don't catch THE gayness" :D

On the application form, all sorts of things should be asked. Like sexuality, race, likes, dislikes, etc....Of course to answer these questions should be optional. Then you should be able to choose your rommate according to your own parameters. For ex: white str8/bi female (opposite sex roommates should be allowed). And the management can find a suitable roommate for you based on application forms...
I don't think it really matters. What has being the same gender, race and sexual preference got to do with how well you get on with someone?
If they were going to do an application form like that, then questions about your taste in music, how often you go out, your personality and what if any hobbies you have would be more important. :rolleyes:

EDIT: I just noticed you mentioned likes and disliked. I guess I just got a little angered that you suggested what race you are (as well as your sexuality) is important in deciding who your flatmates are. I don't think any university would let students choose to be housed with people only of their own race.

I don't think it really matters. What has being the same gender, race and sexual preference got to do with how well you get on with someone?
If they were going to do an application form like that, then questions about your taste in music, how often you go out, your personality and what if any hobbies you have would be more important. :rolleyes:

:rolleyes:

What is important or not is different for different people.

I don't think it really matters. What has being the same gender, race and sexual preference got to do with how well you get on with someone?
If they were going to do an application form like that, then questions about your taste in music, how often you go out, your personality and what if any hobbies you have would be more important. :rolleyes:

The person you're responding to is a racist. So, you know, apparently it will somehow matter. Don't get suckered into why.

You can usually change housing or roommates after they're assigned anyways so long as it's done early; if you're really that uncomfortable about having a gay roommate you can usually change it. You'll probably look like a real prick for doing so, but if that's the way you feel it's better to change than to have some idiot causing trouble for their roommate.

I see no reason to force people to disclose their sexual orientation if they don't want to. If their roommate is gay and they're uncomfortable about it, they can request a change under current policies without having to actually go in to the details.

Maybe it's a case of "keep them away from me so I don't catch THE gayness" :D
They might start doing the washing up in a pink apron! :eek: :rolleyes:

:rolleyes:

What is important or not is different for different people.
So you find someones race to be more important than their personality? :(

The person you're responding to is a racist. So, you know, apparently it will somehow matter. Don't get suckered into why.
So, do you basically just hate anyone who isn't a fairy? Because you're being a real prick.

Is this another case of straight people flattering themselves vainly by thinking they'd be so attractive gay people would want to fuck them?
Are you an idiot? A completely logical and unoffensive post, and you have to be a dick.

And besides, I know some homosexuals find me attractive. As is the same with women. Big deal.

Anyways, back on topic. No, I've had roomates that were gay, and never had a problem. Of course, if the rooms weren't adequately soundproofed that might not be the case, depending on just how ok with it YOU are. That was mainly joking, btw. Just make sure they understand where your line is, and you need to know where theirs is. Same as with living with any other person.

So you find someones race to be more important than their personality? :(

No, but I'd prefer being roommates with a white girl, I dont find others attractive (with some exceptions)...

So, do you basically just hate anyone who isn't a fairy?

I don't believe in faeries, or pixies, or gods.

Because you're being a real prick.

You really should do a post search before you decide who is a prick. He is a racist - that's a matter of fact. If the truth offends you, ignore it.

So, do you basically just hate anyone who isn't a fairy? Because you're being a real prick.

Ignore him. I'm too disgusted by him to be offended....

Are you an idiot?

At least I need to be asked, which is more than can be said about certain people.

A completely logical and unoffensive post, and you have to be a dick.

I don't find it logical or inoffensive. I suggest you learn to read threads before posting to them.

No, but I'd prefer being roommates with a white girl, I dont find others attractive (with some exceptions)...
Yeah, a flatmate is just put there for you to drool over. :rolleyes:

I don't believe in faeries, or pixies, or gods.

Fairy means homosexual. One of the less offensive euphemisms I could think of.

You really should do a post search before you decide who is a prick. He is a racist - that's a matter of fact. If the truth offends you, ignore it.
Racist, huh? I see no post on there that says "I hate n*ggers." And considering the fact that you're acting like a prick, I'd have to say, YOU are the prick, not him

Ignore him.

Please, you, please do so.

I'm too disgusted by him to be offended....

If ever one needed a sign to know one is in the right, it just arrived. :)

place gay with gays don't give them to us we don't want to wake up with a surprise in our bed

Ignore him. I'm too disgusted by him to be offended....
I find him interesting.




(coughandikindofwanttoseehowmuchicanpisshimoffcough)

Yeah, a flatmate is just put there for you to drool over. :rolleyes:

If some girl asks not to be roommates with a male, she wouldnt be placed with me anyways. That's what I mean by comprehensive application forms. If she is somehow uncomfortable with other girls but also dont want males drooling her, she may request a gay male in her application form....

It would have its advantages and disadvantages.

Advantage- Homosexual will not be living with a homophobe who could make life a living hell.

Disadvantage - Its kinda discriminatory.

If this is going on in the UK then I'll face this in a year or so but I don't care who my roomie will be as long as they're great to be around.

I don't think any university would let students choose to be housed with people only of their own race.
Ever heard of a fraternity? Plenty of em dont have mixed races. And that doesn't necessarily reflect discrimination in selection. Some of them just dont hold much appeal to members of another race.


And before I get flamed, can we all agree that race does at least affect a large portion of people in their upbringing, which then effects their likes, dislikes, etc. and in so doing their personality? Not in ALL cases, but many. Especially in areas where cultures specific to a particular race dominant certain areas?

Because I'm sure that someone's going to disagree, so I might as well get it out of the way.

place gay with gays don't give them to us we don't want to wake up with a surprise in our bed

By "us" you mean bigots, yes?

place gay with gays don't give them to us we don't want to wake up with a surprise in our bed
This reminds me of something

“We have no gay people in Russia — there are homosexuals but they are not allowed to be gay about it. The punishment is seven years locked in prison with other men and there is a three year waiting list for that.”

Ah, thanks Yakov.

Fairy means homosexual. One of the less offensive euphemisms I could think of.

What, you found the "courage" to use "fairy," but you just didn't have the stones to use "faggot," "cock monger," "butt pirate," "shit packer," "friend of Dorothy?"

Racist, huh? I see no post on there that says "I hate n*ggers."

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=480768

And considering the fact that you're acting like a prick, I'd have to say, YOU are the prick, not him

You seem to be under the impression I would disagree with being a prick.

At least I need to be asked, which is more than can be said about certain people.



I don't find it logical or inoffensive. I suggest you learn to read threads before posting to them.
I did read the thread, and every post you make makes you appear more like a troll, and a bigoted ass. And not a smart one either. Also, that post was the SECOND one in the thread, meaning I only had to read 1 other post to know what you referring to. And you looked like a dick.

And I am aware of what you were offended by, and the simple fact is that you made a whole shitload of assumptions about the OP as soon as you saw the topic included the word homosexuality. That's YOUR fault for being ignorant, and not bothering to talk to other people. If you want a thread about gay people living with gay people, go makeone. We won't miss you here.

Gay housing just sounds too... Segration to me. It's just proving to the naysayers that 'gays' are 'wrong' and widening the 'straight/not-straight' border.

Plus, I'm bi. Where would I go?

By "us" you mean bigots, yes?straight males or females and homophobes like myself

So, do you basically just hate anyone who isn't a fairy? Because you're being a real prick.
Fass/Baguetten hates everyone equally. At least he doesn't discriminate, eh?

What, you found the "courage" to use "fairy," but you just didn't have the stones to use "faggot," "cock monger," "butt pirate," "shit packer," "friend of Dorothy?"
"Friend of Dorothy"? ROFLMAOPIMP! That's fuckin hilarious.
So is butt pirate, that's not even offensive.
And I said "Less offensive", not "I don't have the courage to use a harsher insult to diss some fairy who can't even find or hurt me."



http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=480768

Yeah... so what? I don't wanna die out either.


You seem to be under the impression I would disagree with being a prick.
Well, at least you admit it.

Fass/Baguetten hates everyone equally. At least he doesn't discriminate, eh?
He's an equal oppurtunity aggressor.:D

Baguetten, you're acting like a complete jerk. If you don't cut it out soon then it's going to be evolve to an, "Everyone vs. you" thread.

http://img266.imageshack.us/img266/9421/shutup9ds.jpg

[QUOTE=Baguetten]What, you found the "courage" to use "fairy," but you just didn't have the stones to use "faggot," "cock monger," "butt pirate," "shit packer," "friend of Dorothy?"
[QUOTE]
maybe it's not that he's afraid it's that he doesn't wanna get banned
i've said stuff like that on a forum and i've been banned twice

Gay housing just sounds too... Segration to me. It's just proving to the naysayers that 'gays' are 'wrong' and widening the 'straight/not-straight' border.

Plus, I'm bi. Where would I go?
Are you female? If so, you and me could get an apartment ;)

And if you're a guy....
Well, I don't think anyone cares about bis anyway. You could stay in the straight house. Which ironically wouldn't do you any good.

straight males or females and homophobes like myself

Not every straight male or female hates gays. Sheesh. I'm a straight guy and some of my friends are gay. I even sleepover at their houses sometimes and I don't wake up with any 'surprises'

Gay housing just sounds too... Segration to me. It's just proving to the naysayers that 'gays' are 'wrong' and widening the 'straight/not-straight' border.

Plus, I'm bi. Where would I go?
With me. Assuming you're attractive.

If some girl asks not to be roommates with a male, she wouldnt be placed with me anyways. That's what I mean by comprehensive application forms. If she is somehow uncomfortable with other girls but also dont want males drooling her, she may request a gay male in her application form....
Do you wish the girls to send in photographs of themselves as well just so you can make sure you find them attractive? :rolleyes:
Actually I'm thinking this application form of yours is a good idea. I'd ask to be put with someone who isn't racist and who thinks that just because I'm a female choosing to be put into mixed housing, I don't necessarily want to sleep with any of the guys just because we ticked similar boxes in a form.

Not every straight male or female hates gays. I never said that they do

He's an equal oppurtunity aggressor.:D
Oh, no, you seem to misunderstand me. I admire Fass, and, as usual on this subject (I hear he's quite the expert), he's correct.

I never said that they do

However you implied it in your previous post.

However you implied it in your previous post.no I implied i hate gays not every man or woman

I did read the thread, and every post you make makes you appear more like a troll, and a bigoted ass.

Bigotry against bigots? My, my, I do manage quite the paradox.

And not a smart one either. Also, that post was the SECOND one in the thread, meaning I only had to read 1 other post to know what you referring to. And you looked like a dick.

http://www.freesmileys.org/emo/sad021.gif

You're really hurting my feelings.

And I am aware of what you were offended by,

No, you don't seem to be, as you haven't explained why only straight people need to be "comfortable" in not having to "worry" about sexual advances from room mates. If that is truly why such segregation should be allowed, how does putting all gay people in a dorm of their "protect" them from this?

No, this thread reeks of "should we accommodate homophobia?" and has very little to do, actually, with protecting anyone from any sort of sexual advances. Except the straight people, that is. Because they apparently would need protecting. For some reason. I'm amazed that more straight people aren't finding this thread offensive, because quite a poor assumption is made of them in the OP.

and the simple fact is that you made a whole shitload of assumptions about the OP as soon as you saw the topic included the word homosexuality.

I happen to know since earlier what the OP's professed sexual orientation is and I was not directing that comment at him, but the crux of the matter. I cut to the chase of the matter, because, well, the excuse of "protection" was offensive to straight people as well as gay people, and I didn't want to give the impression I had fallen for it one bit.

That's YOUR fault for being ignorant, and not bothering to talk to other people. If you want a thread about gay people living with gay people, go makeone. We won't miss you here.

You seem to think I care that you don't like me here. Now, where did I put that sobbing smiley?

Oh, no, you seem to misunderstand me. I admire Fass, and, as usual on this subject (I hear he's quite the expert), he's correct.
Actually, I basically said the same thing you did, just put it another way...
And I have no idea if he's correct or not, IMO he's to busy being an ass to state his viewpoint.

Do you wish the girls to send in photographs of themselves as well just so you can make sure you find them attractive? :rolleyes:
Actually I'm thinking this application form of yours is a good idea. I'd ask to be put with someone who isn't racist and who thinks that just because I'm a female choosing to be put into mixed housing, I don't necessarily want to sleep with any of the guys just because we ticked similar boxes in a form.

Define racist.

Edit: Photographs would be nice....

Do you wish the girls to send in photographs of themselves as well just so you can make sure you find them attractive? :rolleyes:
YES.

Go ahead and tell me I'm wrong. I don't care, that would be great. Hell, I'll stick a picture in my application. That would virtually guarantee a threesome once a week. One roomate who already wants your nuts, and then you gotta be able to pick up one girl a week. Perfect.

Define racist.

Edit: Photographs would be nice....
It's student housing, not a dating agency. :rolleyes:

YES.

Go ahead and tell me I'm wrong. I don't care, that would be great. Hell, I'll stick a picture in my application. That would virtually guarantee a threesome once a week. One roomate who already wants your nuts, and then you gotta be able to pick up one girl a week. Perfect.

LOL. Of course there should be also a box for students which asks if they like casual sex!

It's student housing, not a dating agency. :rolleyes:

As I said, every info is optional. You dont have to put your own pics but you cant avoid others doing so.

this is getting confusing
who is the troll
who is racist
who is gay
who is bi

"Friend of Dorothy"? ROFLMAOPIMP! That's fuckin hilarious. So is butt pirate, that's not even offensive. And I said "Less offensive", not "I don't have the courage to use a harsher insult to diss some fairy who can't even find or hurt me."

It's also quite old, but people like you don't tend to have heard the true classics. You use "fairy" and think you're, oh, so inventive with your name calling. Sorry, miss, but I've been called things by a lot more creative people, and, well, am accustomed to a standard you seem incapable of reaching.

Yeah... so what? I don't wanna die out either.

Someone didn't read the post and description of black people and the maligning of Jews...

Well, at least you admit it.

What can I say - the truth doesn't offend me.

It's also quite old, but people like you don't tend to have heard the true classics. You use "fairy" and think you're, oh, so inventive with your name calling. Sorry, miss, but I've been called things by a lot more creative people, and, well, am accustomed to a standard you seem incapable of reaching.
.tell me if your gay then i might think of something better than fairy

Gay housing just sounds too... Segration to me. It's just proving to the naysayers that 'gays' are 'wrong' and widening the 'straight/not-straight' border.

Plus, I'm bi. Where would I go?
you get your own house with other bi's

*snip
No.

Again, you made assumptions. As such, everything you say is completely ridiculous, and that is why EVERY PERSON in this thread is wondering what in the hell is wrong with you. And since you've labeled us all bigots, well, I guess I don't really care. And no one is talking about *accommodating homophobia,* you're just so cracked out and brain dead that you read that into the thread yourself, and proceeded to act like a moron.





On different note,


Butt Pirate

No.

Again, you made assumptions. As such, everything you say is completely ridiculous, and that is why EVERY PERSON in this thread is wondering what in the hell is wrong with you. And since you've labeled us all bigots, well, I guess I don't really care. And no one is talking about *accommodating homophobia,* you're just so cracked out and brain dead that you read that into the thread yourself, and proceeded to act like a moron.





On different note,


Butt Pirate

Chill...He's not worth of getting banned for....

It's also quite old, but people like you don't tend to have heard the true classics. You use "fairy" and think you're, oh, so inventive with your name calling. Sorry, miss, but I've been called things by a lot more creative people, and, well, am accustomed to a standard you seem incapable of reaching.
Funny, I don't remember trying to be inventive. I just remember trying to use something a step above gay, and a step below bannable.
Also, I find it hypocritical that you're saying how I'm not inventive in my insults, and during this statement, you call me a female.
This also implies that you find being female a bad thing. Making YOU a sexist.


Someone didn't read the post and description of black people and the maligning of Jews...

No, both descriptions were very true.

jk

What can I say - the truth doesn't offend me.
...OK...

,


Butt Piratethat's good and all but i'm a big fan of the phrase ASS GOBLIN

(I'm not gay)

,


Butt Piratethat's good and all but i'm a big fan of the phrase ASS GOBLIN

(I'm not gay)

,


Butt Piratethat's good and all but i'm a big fan of the phrase ASS GOBLIN

(I'm not gay)

Again, you made assumptions. As such, everything you say is completely ridiculous, and that is why EVERY PERSON in this thread is wondering what in the hell is wrong with you. And since you've labeled us all bigots, well, I guess I don't really care. And no one is talking about *accommodating homophobia,* you're just so cracked out and brain dead that you read that into the thread yourself, and proceeded to act like a moron.

So basically you can't provide a cohesive response and instead "author" that to try to make your inability less apparent. Unsuccessfully, of course. Speaking of failure...

On different note,
Butt Pirate

... one pines by-the-byly for originality, one gets aping of one's very own example. If I weren't less jaded, I'd probably feel something emulating disappointment.

this is getting confusing
who is the troll
who is racist
who is gay
who is bi
LOL

Sounds like Mystery Murder Theater, but with a new twist. Mystery Maraposa Theater?

that's good and all but i'm a big fan of the phrase ASS GOBLIN

(I'm not gay)
When one says they're not gay thrice, one begins to question their sexuality...

When one says they're not gay thrice, one begins to question their sexuality...
srry bout that my computer messed up

srry bout that my computer messed up
lol, I figured.

When one says they're not gay thrice, one begins to question their sexuality...
when people say words like thrice one begins to question their sexuality:)

LOL

Sounds like Mystery Murder Theater, but with a new twist. Mystery Maraposa Theater?
let see i think Baguetten is the troll and the russian guy is racist? I don't know

srry bout that my computer messed up
Maybe your computer is gay...

let see i think Baguetten is the troll and the russian guy is racist? I don't know

Which Russian guy?

Which Russian guy?
you.

So basically you can't provide a cohesive response and instead "author" that to try to make your inability less apparent. Unsuccessfully, of course. Speaking of faliure...



... one pines by-the-byly for originality, one gets aping of one's very own example. If I weren't less jaded, I'd probably feel something emulating disappointment.
Don't worry, I've been thinking of better ones.

Brown-Hatter (I know that ones not you), Daisy-duck(thats you), pillow biter, sausage jockey, brownie queen, *sailor's cup of tea (I always liked this one)*

Or:
Helium heels, ace queen, bat boy, change machine, camp bitch (bet that was you too;) ), bentwrist, fish queen, goober smoocher, 175er, finocchio, hair fairy, up hill gardener, and finally, orange crush.


Any of those more original?

Well, if I am to live with a room-mate, I would indeed like to be able to state that I'd prefer a homosexual student as one. The choice should be up to the applicant though, not the university.

What nonsense. What does sexual orientation have to do with getting along with another peson unless you're a homophobe?

when people say words like thrice one begins to question their sexuality:)
He does have a point there...

you.

He thinks Norway is in Russia?

LOL. Of course there should be also a box for students which asks if they like casual sex!
This is just getting silly. I've enjoyed casual sex, but I wouldn't agree to sleep with a guy based on an aplication form and a picture. Especially when I'll have to live with them for the rest of the year. What if things don't work out, and I discover him to be an annoying pathetic idiot? Plus there will be too many expectations if you were to tick that box. What if she were to instantly dislike you and say no? You wouldn't be very pleased then, right?
Just stop with the wishful thinking, this application form idea of yours won't land you with your very own sex slave. :rolleyes:

Funny, I don't remember trying to be inventive.

Oh, that's becoming quite obvious.

I just remember trying to use something a step above gay, and a step below bannable.

My primary assessment of your lack of stones was indeed correct. You wanted to attempt an insult, but were afraid of getting banned. Why deny it at first, only to later admit it? Tsk, tsk.

Just so you know, I don't report people who insult me, since I really don't care. But you shouldn't insult me. I don't want to have anything to do with any repercussions.

Also, I find it hypocritical that you're saying how I'm not inventive in my insults, and during this statement, you call me a female.
This also implies that you find being female a bad thing. Making YOU a sexist.

I assumed you to be female - pretty value neutral to me. You're the one that seems to think that I should have meant that as an insult. But, sure, I'm the sexist here. Sure, sure.

let see i think Baguetten is the troll and the russian guy is racist? I don't know

Lets sort this out for you:

Baguetten is allegedly a troll, and also gay.

Nordligmark isn't Russian, but is a racist.

Cannabenedril is either ludicrously uninformed or just trolling, and is straight with a dash of homophobia and quite possibly a big dollop of bi-curiousity.

Liberated New Ireland is bi, I think. Not sure though.

Surf Shack is straight and arguing with Baguetten.

And me? I'm straight, and probably leaving this thread very soon. All traces of actual debate disappeared about halfway down page two.

Happy now?

What nonsense. What does sexual orientation have to do with getting along with another peson unless you're a homophobe?
...

Umm, well maybe as a gay person I'd like to share a room with another gay person? -_-

Come on, I spent all that time thinking up language friendly creative terms (ok, I looked up 7 of them), I want to hear what everyone thinks.

I vote the first one, I would hate to be stuck in a room with a gay guy

camp bitch (bet that was you too;)

Alas, only in my dreams. *sigh* We don't have camp, as in summer camp and stuff, in that sense here, but you do give me a great business idea.

Any of those more original?

Copy-pasting from the Internet is originality? OK...

...

Umm, well maybe as a gay person I'd like to share a room with another gay person? -_-
Hmm. Out of curiosity, why would you feel that you would get along better with a gay person than a straight person?

This is just getting silly. I've enjoyed casual sex, but I wouldn't agree to sleep with a guy based on an aplication form and a picture. Especially when I'll have to live with them for the rest of the year. What if things don't work out, and I discover him to be an annoying pathetic idiot? Plus there will be too many expectations if you were to tick that box. What if she were to instantly dislike you and say no? You wouldn't be very pleased then, right?
Just stop with the wishful thinking, this application form idea of yours won't land you with your very own sex slave. :rolleyes:

You might be right. The app forms might make everything too easy. Finding my sex slave via natural means could be more adventurous and exciting. But app forms should be more comprehensive. About the op, some people may not want to be roommates with gays or some people may want it exclusively. As I said, I for one would prefer a white female with similar interests to mine and with a reasonable personality match.

Hmm. Out of curiosity, why would you feel that you would get along better with a gay person than a straight person?
Depends...with a heterosexual woman, I could get along well. With a non-camp homosexual, the same. With most heterosexual men or some homosexual ones, I would rather share a room with Freddy Kruger...

Alas, only in my dreams. *sigh* We don't have camp, as in summer camp and stuff, in that sense here, but you do give me a great business idea.



Copy-pasting from the Internet is originality? OK...
Hey, not all of them were off the internet! Sailor's cup of tea, brown hatter, and plenty others I already knew!

Psh.

...

Umm, well maybe as a gay person I'd like to share a room with another gay person? -_-

But, how is that supposed to shield you from this "possible sexual attraction" the OP mentions as a reason that you need protecting from? Well, apparently straight people need protecting from, but let's assume gay people need it, too, and leave the poor reflection the OP gives on straight people to the side. Seems quite counter-productive to have a room mate that would want to bonk you, then, no?

Not that I would have anything against that, but we're assuming people need protection here, remember.

You might be right. The app forms might make everything too easy. Finding my sex slave via natural means could be more adventurous and exciting. But app forms should be more comprehensive. About the op, some people may not want to be roommates with gays or some people may want it exclusively. As I said, I for one would prefer a white female with similar interests to mine and with a reasonable personality match.
Haha, you make it sound like a uni dating service. :D

Lets sort this out for you:

Baguetten is allegedly a troll, and also gay.

Nordligmark isn't Russian, but is a racist.

Cannabenedril is either ludicrously uninformed or just trolling, and is straight with a dash of homophobia and quite possibly a big dollop of bi-curiousity.

Liberated New Ireland is bi, I think. Not sure though.

Surf Shack is straight and arguing with Baguetten.

And me? I'm straight, and probably leaving this thread very soon. All traces of actual debate disappeared about halfway down page two.

Happy now?

:rolleyes:
Define racist...

Hey, not all of them were off the internet! Sailor's cup of tea, brown hatter, and plenty others I already knew! Psh.

Sure you did. And knowing them is having originated them. *Swedish*A-ha.*/Swedish*

Haha, you make it sound like a uni dating service. :D

It'd be time conserving. Instead of looking for sex, you'd just shag with your roomie ;)

But, how is that supposed to shield you from this "possible sexual attraction" the OP mentions as a reason that you need protecting from? Well, apparently straight people need protecting from, but let's assume gay people need it, too, and leave the poor reflection the OP gives on straight people to the side. Seems quite counter-productive to have a room mate that would want to bonk you, then, no?

Not that I would have anything against that, but we're assuming people need protection here, remember.
Well, no one ever said the OP isn't an idiot...that said, you could argue that homosexuals would need protection against homophobic room-mates...although that is hardly the reason I'd support, and like you said, your room-mate may still want to have his way with you. In any event, I'd go for this as a preference of room-mate, but not for the OP's reasons.

He thinks Norway is in Russia?either you or the new ireland guy

:rolleyes:
Define racist...

racist
adj
1: based on racial intolerance; "racist remarks"
2: discriminatory especially on the basis of race or religion [syn: antiblack, anti-Semitic, anti-Semite(a)]
n : a person with a prejudiced belief that one race is superior to others [syn: racialist]


rac·ism Pronunciation Key (rszm)
n.
1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
2. Discrimination or prejudice based on race.


Gotta love the dictionary, huh? ;)

:rolleyes:
Define racist...hating somebody cause they're a different race

But, how is that supposed to shield you from this "possible sexual attraction" the OP mentions as a reason that you need protecting from? Well, apparently straight people need protecting from, but let's assume gay people need it, too, and leave the poor reflection the OP gives on straight people to the side. Seems quite counter-productive to have a room mate that would want to bonk you, then, no?

Not that I would have anything against that, but we're assuming people need protection here, remember.
So what, now, all gay people want to bang any gay person they happen to meet? Maybe he's ugly? Amazing, you just did the same thing you bitched about the OP doing. Alright, so Bag is gay, and he says gays are sluts. Oh yea, and he's heard every derogatory term for homosexual that exists, and wasn't impressed by any of them.


Actually, I think I'm starting to like this gay.


EDIT: Umm, sorry, that was actually supposed to be *guy*, not *gay*. Obviously my mind is stuck in a rut;)

You might be right. The app forms might make everything too easy. Finding my sex slave via natural means could be more adventurous and exciting. But app forms should be more comprehensive. About the op, some people may not want to be roommates with gays or some people may want it exclusively. As I said, I for one would prefer a white female with similar interests to mine and with a reasonable personality match.
Unfortunately for you, universities would see you demanding to have a roommate of a certain race to be discrimination. That's a big no-no, as is treating someone differently just because of their sexual preference.

either you or the new ireland guy

Huh? When did I say I was Russian?

Unfortunately for you, universities would see you demanding to have a roommate of a certain race to be discrimination. That's a big no-no, as is treating someone differently just because of their sexual preference.
Why? When you choose somewhere to live you usually choose it on your own arbitrary criteria? The university living environment is there to help you make the best of your time. If you'd prefer a white homosexual male, or a black heterosexual female as your room-mate, and you can find an applicant who'd desire you, why not allow it? Forcing "equality" down people's throats is idiocy. By choosing a non-smoker area you are discriminating in a way. Same with uni-genderial halls.

hating somebody cause they're a different race
When did he say he hates anyone for said reason?

Well, no one ever said the OP isn't an idiot...

My attempts at showing the flaws of the OP having met this resistance sure could have fooled me. Some seem to actually think it makes sense.

that said, you could argue that homosexuals would need protection against homophobic room-mates... although that is hardly the reason I'd support,

I should hope that you wouldn't.

and like you said, your room-mate may still want to have his way with you. In any event, I'd go for this as a preference of room-mate, but not for the OP's reasons.

The thing is, the OP wants to allow institutionalised and condoned discrimination based on sexual orientation. So do you. I am of the opinion that there is no good reason for it - it's still discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation even if a gay person discriminates a straight person, and I've always been under the impression that since gay people don't like being discriminated against, we would be reluctant to indulge in the same exact thing ourselves. Or, what, the hypocrisy would have "nobler" excuses and not be the patently ugly thing it has always been?

Huh? When did I say I was Russian?
I said i though new ireland was russian
when you asked whose russian he said you
so i didn't mean to say you were russian

When did he say he hates anyone for said reason?
have you even been paying attention through out this thread

have you even been paying attention through out this thread
Yes, and I haven't seen examples of manifest hatred.

racist
adj
1: based on racial intolerance; "racist remarks"
2: discriminatory especially on the basis of race or religion [syn: antiblack, anti-Semitic, anti-Semite(a)]
n : a person with a prejudiced belief that one race is superior to others [syn: racialist]


So based on the 2nd part, companies who are making sun block creams (because blacks dont use them) or doctors who are researching and/or prescribing drugs for a certain races (those medicines do exist and perform better then "non-racist" drugs) are racist as well?


rac·ism Pronunciation Key (rszm)
n.
1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
2. Discrimination or prejudice based on race.



So saying "blacks are good at basketball" makes you racist? Also these definitions mean affirmative action is racist as well (since it discriminates based on race). That makes USA, UK and others racist countries with racist laws.



Gotta love the dictionary, huh? ;)


Sure...

The thing is, the OP wants to allow institutionalised and condoned discrimination based on sexual orientation. So do you. I am of the opinion that there is no good reason for it - it's still discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation even if a gay person discriminates a straight person, and I've always been under the impression that since gay people don't like being discriminated against, we would be reluctant to indulge in the same exact thing ourselves. Or, what, the hypocrisy would have "nobler" excuses and not be the patently ugly thing it has always been?
To be honest, if one chooses to discriminate against me it is their own affair. In many actions we take we inadvertedly discriminate anyway. If I believed that I'd do better with a homosexual room-mate, I'd like the option to purse such an arrangement. Otherwise, I'd rather just have my own room or rent privately.

Yes, and I haven't seen examples of manifest hatred.
he said define racist so i gave him my defintion of racism

So what, now, all gay people want to bang any gay person they happen to meet? Maybe he's ugly? Amazing, you just did the same thing you bitched about the OP doing. Alright, so Bag is gay, and he says gays are sluts. Oh yea, and he's heard every derogatory term for homosexual that exists, and wasn't impressed by any of them.

Way to miss the point. The OP is the one making the assumption that this "sexual attraction" would take place between the room mates if a gay person and a straight person get to share rooms, and gives that as a reason for segregation. I am just applying that twisted logic to the consequence - gay people being paired with each other run the same risk. And yet, that doesn't seem to bother the OP at all.

So saying "blacks are good at basketball" makes you racist? Also these definitions mean affirmative action is racist as well (since it discriminates based on race). That makes USA, UK and others racist countries with racist laws.

Affirmative action is widely acknowledged as racist anyway.

Unfortunately for you, universities would see you demanding to have a roommate of a certain race to be discrimination. That's a big no-no, as is treating someone differently just because of their sexual preference.

Oh I thought universities were for promoting free thinking and individual freedoms. What a paradox...

Yes, and I haven't seen examples of manifest hatred.
Yea, me either. Actually, everyone is always calling Nord racist, but I've never heard him say he was. And I can't see why he would really care what you though if he WAS racist, since I don't think thats a bannable offense.

To be honest, if one chooses to discriminate against me it is their own affair. In many actions we take we inadvertedly discriminate anyway. If I believed that I'd do better with a homosexual room-mate, I'd like the option to purse such an arrangement. Otherwise, I'd rather just have my own room or rent privately.

Well, it seems some gay people don't have anything against discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation as long as it is them that are doing it.

I call it ugly behaviour from gay people as well, and nothing that should be condoned or aided.

Way to miss the point.
LOL

That's what WE said.

Affirmative action is widely acknowledged as racist anyway.

Yes but saying British laws are racist isnt widely acknowledged. Especially when some Labour politician speaking....

-Snip OP-
Why not just have individual rooms? I mean seriously, who gives a toss that the guy you're sharing with is gay/bisexual/black/white/pink with yellow spots when he spends all night snoring?

Is this another case of straight people flattering themselves vainly by thinking they'd be so attractive gay people would want to fuck them?
You know you want me.

Why not just have individual rooms? I mean seriously, who gives a toss that the guy you're sharing with is gay/bisexual/black/white/pink with yellow spots when he spends all night snoring?
Space-saving measures are necessary in universities.

Why not just have individual rooms? I mean seriously, who gives a toss that the guy you're sharing with is gay/bisexual/black/white/pink with yellow spots when he spends all night snoring?
I'd far prefer individual rooms, or perhaps even a studio, to any shared room. I hate sharing my living quarters.

He thinks Norway is in Russia?
either you or the new ireland guy
What the hell does this mean?

Space-saving measures are necessary in universities.
That's funny, I spent three years at University without having to share a room with someone for 'space saving' reasons. I don't know a single person who did, either.

That's what WE said.

No, you didn't. You can't even explain how putting gay people together is avoiding the risk of this "sexual attraction" between room mates the OP is giving as a reason for segregation. I've asked you several times now, and you keep failing.

You know you want me.

You know you want me, too, so what's the problem?

Yes but saying British laws are racist isnt widely acknowledged. Especially when some Labour politician speaking....
Oh, it is...it's simply what is called substantive rather than formal law. Which is why the UK governments have such a wide discretion in the laws they pass.

Also these definitions mean affirmative action is racist as well (since it discriminates based on race).

No, it doesn't. It discriminates based on the consequences of societal racism and racial inequality.

If those conditions didn't exist, no one would advocate affirmative action.

You know you want me, too, so what's the problem?
I'd never live down the fact that I'd slept with a turnip.

No, you didn't. You can't even explain how putting gay people together is avoiding the risk of this "sexual attraction" between room mates the OP is giving as a reason for segregation. I've asked you several times now, and you keep failing.

The OPer specifically stated he didn't have an opinion. But I'm sure he was still a bigot.

And putting gay people together protects them just like putting women together protects them. Ever think of that? Can't bust into the gay guys room and kick his ass if you can't get in his building...

And it protects the straight people because that way gay guys cant fondle them in their sleep. Do I think that's likely? Not really. But still possible. So there's your reasons. I didn't repeatedly fail, I just never really bothered to try.

F*cking drama queens (pun intended)

I'd never live down the fact that I'd slept with a turnip.

I'm not asking you to live, I'm asking you to swallow.

[QUOTE=Soheran]No, it doesn't. It discriminates based on the consequences of societal racism and racial inequality.QUOTE]


You forgot the rest of the bolded part " BY giving advantages to members of specific races."


So yea, it discriminates based on race.

Well, it seems some gay people don't have anything against discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation as long as it is them that are doing it.

I call it ugly behaviour from gay people as well, and nothing that should be condoned or aided.
When it comes to something as personal as whom I share my living quarters with, I like a choice in the matter.

I'm not asking you to live, I'm asking you to swallow.
ROFL

jelly bean

When it comes to something as personal as whom I share my living quarters with, I like a choice in the matter.
Didn't you know? That makes you a bigot. You're supposed to like everyone regardless of how much of a *insert word here* they are:p

So yea, it discriminates based on race.

No, it doesn't. It might use race as a guide, but its discrimination is not based on race.

No advocate of affirmative action would advocate it in a society where people were truly treated equally, regardless of race. If it were really "based on race," they would.

And putting gay people together protects them just like putting women together protects them.

But it doesn't protect women.

Ever think of that? Can't bust into the gay guys room and kick his ass if you can't get in his building...

Ah, so to protect the blacks, they must be segregated from white people? Because we should assume white people would assault black people? Like we should assume straight people would gay people?

I find the assumption offensive of white people as well as of straight people.

And it protects the straight people because that way gay guys cant fondle them in their sleep. Do I think that's likely? Not really. But still possible. So there's your reasons. I didn't repeatedly fail, I just never really bothered to try.

But how does it protect the gay people from being fondled in their sleep?

F*cking drama queens (pun intended)

There's that rapier wit, again.

No, it doesn't. It might use race as a guide, but its discrimination is not based on race.

No advocate of affirmative action would advocate it in a society where people were truly treated equally, regardless of race. If it were really "based on race," they would.

This is a rather idiotic thing to say since 100% equality can never be achived. If there werent any racial discrimination, there would be some other discrimination. Should we also start affirmative action for ugly women because pretty women are more advantaged in labour market? Should short people get a quota in NBA?

Edit: Hence, since there would be always discrimination, fighting discrimination with discriminatory laws is stupid...

1. But it doesn't protect women.

2. Ah, so to protect the blacks, they must be segregated from white people? Because we should assume white people would assault black people? Like we should assume straight people would gay people?

I find the assumption offensive of white people as well as of straight people.

3. But how does it protect the gay people from being fondled in their sleep?

4. There's that rapier wit, again.
1. It protects GAY women. You are forgetting that women can be homosexual too. Bigot.

2. We already do this. We call the black people's dorms "prisons" ;) :p

3. Since you already said all gay people are sluts, they won't mind.

4. Well, you know, I try.

No, it doesn't. It might use race as a guide, but its discrimination is not based on race.

No advocate of affirmative action would advocate it in a society where people were truly treated equally, regardless of race. If it were really "based on race," they would.
It doesn't help people who are white. That means it discriminates based on race, by today's standards. You know, equal-opportunity? Where's affirmative action opportunities for white people? There aren't any, so we are discriminated against. Obviously, we don't care.

This is a rather idiotic thing to say since 100% equality can never be achived. If there werent any racial discrimination, there would be some other discrimination. Should we also start affirmative action for ugly women because pretty women are more advantaged in labour market? Should short people get a quota in NBA?
Let's eliminate all differences amongst people. Let's make them all the same and allow some computer to control them. :) Then they'd be perpetually equal...

When it comes to something as personal as whom I share my living quarters with, I like a choice in the matter.

You want choice in the matter? Get your own place and interview your own applicants. Your discrimination will be as ugly then, but at least it will be your own and not condoned or aided by anyone else.

Then, again, while you're in Sweden I suggest you don't. It's illegal, private person or not, to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation in housing. And it will be up to you to prove you didn't discriminate, so it may end up being quite the pickle should someone get HomO involved.

It doesn't help people who are white. That means it discriminates based on race, by today's standards. You know, equal-opportunity? Where's affirmative action opportunities for white people? There aren't any, so we are discriminated against. Obviously, we don't care.
It's silly. In some cases, it goes overboard, and creates new groups of dependents...which then must again be treated with a good, "healthy" dose of affirmative action. In my opinion, help all those who are poor regardless of qualifiers...

1. It protects GAY women. You are forgetting that women can be homosexual too. Bigot.

It doesn't protect gay women. They can still be "fondled."

2. We already do this. We call the black people's dorms "prisons" ;) :p

Oh, I see what sort of person I'm dealing with.

3. Since you already said all gay people are sluts, they won't mind.

I never said such a thing. Really, if you must stoop to inventing things I am to have said...

4. Well, you know, I try.

That's the really sad bit - that no doubt you do.

You all have such fucking amazing ideas. I entirely agree that we should segregate people over such terribly important things such as sexual preference and race. It's not true at all that segregation increases tensions between different groups. Stick everyone that isn't a straight white person into the homohouse/niggerhouse or whatever. I don't want to have to spend any more time with them freaks than I have to. :rolleyes:

You want choice in the matter? Get your own place and interview your own applicants. Your discrimination will be as ugly then, but at least it will be your own and not condoned or aided by anyone else.
Hmm...so let's see...we know that a cat and a dog will be at each other's throats. We have another cat and another dog. We can facilitate by offering said cat the ability to share a room with another cat. Less conflict. Why force things to go any way? Why remove all element of individual choice from society? It is ridiculous.

Then, again, while you're in Sweden I suggest you don't. It's illegal, private person or not, to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation in housing. And it will be up to you to prove you didn't discriminate, so it may end up being quite the pickle should someone get HomO involved.
I won't be in Sweden that long to worry about it anyway.

It's silly. In some cases, it goes overboard, and creates new groups of dependents...which then must again be treated with a good, "healthy" dose of affirmative action. In my opinion, help all those who are poor regardless of qualifiers...
Nah. The silly part is the people who don't see the myriad problems, and condemn anyone who points them out as racist. Apparently only black people can be opposed to affirmative action, and even when they do it makes them a *slave n*gger* or whatever term they use now for black people who agree with white people .

Nah. The silly part is the people who don't see the myriad problems, and condemn anyone who points them out as racist. Apparently only black people can be opposed to affirmative action, and even when they do it makes them a *slave n*gger* or whatever term they use now for black people who agree with white people .
It seriously annoys me to hear when people like Condoleeza Rice or Thomas Sowell are branded as "race traitors" simply because they do not fit their background's stereotype and adhere to positions resulting from their own free thinking.

It doesn't help people who are white. That means it discriminates based on race, by today's standards. You know, equal-opportunity? Where's affirmative action opportunities for white people? There aren't any, so we are discriminated against. Obviously, we don't care.

You clearly did not pay the slightest attention to anything I said.

This is a rather idiotic thing to say since 100% equality can never be achived.

So because perfection can't be achieved, all partial solutions are bad?

If there werent any racial discrimination, there would be some other discrimination.

Oh? Do people have an "arbitrary discrimination" quota that must be met?

Should we also start affirmative action for ugly women because pretty women are more advantaged in labour market?

If there were an effective way to measure "ugliness" and solid evidence for significant discrimination, absolutely.

Should short people get a quota in NBA?

Discrimination based on physical qualities that affect performance is perfectly legitimate, as it is not arbitrary.

Edit: Hence, since there would be always discrimination, fighting discrimination with discriminatory laws is stupid...

No, that doesn't follow. It's like saying that because there will always be death, saving lives is stupid.

It doesn't protect gay women. They can still be "fondled."

Oh, I see what sort of person I'm dealing with.

I never said such a thing. Really, if you must stoop to inventing things I am to have said...

That's the really sad bit - that no doubt you do.
Sure you said it. I pointed it out, quoted and all. You said it the same way the OP said he was a homophobe.

And that's right, I made a racist joke. Arguing with you is unfortunately boring enough that I had to *mix it up*. Now you can call me a bigot and I won't bother arguing.

As far as the last comment, hey, that entire post that is quoted here did absolutely nothing to disprove the post it was written to counteract, which means that remarks toward my intelligence, coming from you, are just funny.

*snip*
Educating people not to discriminate is one thing...forcing them not to is another, and something I will never agree with. I am not a revolutionary type, but I will never allow a state which prioritises security and harmony over freedom to be my ruler.

Hmm...so let's see...we know that a cat and a dog will be at each other's throats. We have another cat and another dog. We can facilitate by offering said cat the ability to share a room with another cat. Less conflict. Why force things to go any way? Why remove all element of individual choice from society? It is ridiculous.

What's ridiculous is assuming conflict because of sexual orientation, or race (it's very ironic that you chose animal race as an example, by the way). A gay person declining a straight person because the person is straight is as ugly, if not even more, than a straight person declining a gay person because that person is gay. There is no difference, and such behaviour should not be condoned or aided. In fact, it should be made illegal.

Oh, it has been! :)

I won't be in Sweden that long to worry about it anyway.

Our gain, I should suppose after this.

It seriously annoys me to hear when people like Condoleeza Rice or Thomas Sowell are branded as "race traitors" simply because they do not fit their background's stereotype and adhere to positions resulting from their own free thinking.
Careful, we may be bordering on some form of racial slur. I agree with you totally. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. There's no coming out of it clean.

Educating people not to discriminate is one thing...forcing them not to is another, and something I will never agree with. I am not a revolutionary type, but I will never allow a state which prioritises security and harmony over freedom to be my ruler.
Then you must go to the reeducation camps.

Here is a question where I don’t actually have a side picked (Gasp I know)

But a recent incident locally made me think of it..

Should Homosexuality be a determination on housing placement like Sex or (at our school ) smoking preference.

The reason I ask this … when being housed in a small room with someone for 8 months out of the year most people want to feel comfortable with that person. While I personally would have no problem some people would find possible sexual attraction disconcerting in a roommate, I know I had enough of an issue with that from a crazy female roommate (in apartment not dorm setting).

I don’t know part of me understands why and realizes that roommates have to be comfortable with each other to make things work and something like that could make as big of difference in that as Age Sex and Smoking preferences (all criteria for housing placement as is)

I guess I just wanted to see what NS general would thing (poll coming)
If the straight in the room hates gays or is unconformitable around them or vice versa, yes. If not, no.

You clearly did not pay the slightest attention to anything I said.
No, I read it. It wasn't very long you know. And you just as clearly refuse to face simple logic, and persist in perpetuating this double-standard that allows PC guidelines to thoughtlessly promote the very racial inequalities that affirmative action was intended to amend.

Sure you said it. I pointed it out, quoted and all.

There you are, inventing things again. And still not being able to explain how it protects gay people from being fondled.

And that's right, I made a racist joke. Arguing with you is unfortunately boring enough that I had to *mix it up*. Now you can call me a bigot and I won't bother arguing.

I don't need to bother calling you anything.

As far as the last comment, hey, that entire post that is quoted here did absolutely nothing to disprove the post it was written to counteract,

That's because you failed again to explain how it protects gay people from being fondled.

which means that remarks toward my intelligence, coming from you, are just funny.

I guess literacy is as much to ask as wit is.

Educating people not to discriminate is one thing...forcing them not to is another, and something I will never agree with.
So you have no problems if someone is fired from their job just because it was discovered that person was a homosexual? If someone if refused into a university because they are muslim? Or if they are arrested purely for being black? :eek:

What's ridiculous is assuming conflict because of sexual orientation, or race (it's very ironic that you chose animal race as an example, by the way). A gay person declining a straight person because the person is straight is as ugly, if not even more, than a straight person declining a gay person because that person is gay. There is no difference, and such behaviour should not be condoned or aided. In fact, it should be made illegal.

Oh, it has been! :)
Merely by dint of most universities being public institutions I could agree that they cannot aid such discrimination, if it is indeed such. Then, however, they should ban all forms of choice in the matter, to be consistent.

I am not assuming conflict, I am assuming a state of affairs which would be preferable to the person engaged, say like choosing a window seat in a plane over an aisle one.

And lest we forget, humans are animals themselves in origin...perhaps more like the feline than like the ape though.

Our gain, I should suppose after this.
Suppose what you like. I want to live in a free society. Not one where some opinions are held to be illegal...

Educating people not to discriminate is one thing...forcing them not to is another, and something I will never agree with. I am not a revolutionary type, but I will never allow a state which prioritises security and harmony over freedom to be my ruler.
You def. don't live here in the US ;)

Patriot Act, anyone?

By the way, is there a form of affirmative action in Europe? I mean, Europeans screwed Africa over more than anyone. I am genuinely ignorant of any information on this subject, so please shed some light.

Oh, yea, Bag, don't reply to that. I need facts.

You clearly did not pay the slightest attention to anything I said.



So because perfection can't be achieved, all partial solutions are bad?



Oh? Do people have an "arbitrary discrimination" quota that must be met?



If there were an effective way to measure "ugliness" and solid evidence for significant discrimination, absolutely.


Then you'd end up with myriad of affirmative action laws which would make the goverment a non democratic police state since "equal under law" principle would be violated so many times. Not to mention to punish people with good qualities is stupid and ineffective and even bad for evolution. I think you are suffering from soviet syndrome. Starting with idealistic grounds then turning towards a police state to repress "priviliged"


Discrimination based on physical qualities that affect performance is perfectly legitimate, as it is not arbitrary.


IQ effects performance. And:
http://www.news-medical.net/?id=9530

So it should be legal to reject blacks for work, by your logic?


No, that doesn't follow. It's like saying that because there will always be death, saving lives is stupid.

And you are like forcefully removing some people's organs because 1 person might die...

So you have no problems if someone is fired from their job just because it was discovered that person was a homosexual? If someone if refused into a university because they are muslim? Or if they are arrested purely for being black? :eek:
In the sphere of private action, absolutely no, I have no problem. It will be the agent's loss in most cases, something they'll quickly learn. In the case of governmental action, I guess I would object to positive discrimination.

Then you must go to the reeducation camps.
Nah, I guess the death camps will do for evil heretics like myself. Let's set up the Inquisition and spare our firebrand crusaders the effort. :)

<snip>

Suppose what you like. I want to live in a free society. Not one where some opinions are held to be illegal...

I call it the Soviet syndrome. Oppression for "equality"....

By the way, is there a form of affirmative action in Europe? I mean, Europeans screwed Africa over more than anyone. I am genuinely ignorant of any information on this subject, so please shed some light.

Certainly not in the UK. Giving preference to people just because of their skin colour or sex is a ridiculous idea. My american friend once told me his dad went to a job interview. He was told they'd love to hire him, but they couldn't because they'd already filled up their quota for white males. Does that really happen? :eek:

There you are, inventing things again. And still not being able to explain how it protects gay people from being fondled.

I don't need to bother calling you anything.

That's because you failed again to explain how it protects gay people from being fondled.

I guess literacy is as much to ask as wit is.
No, I did provide a reason. You refused to acknowledge it. Not liking my reason doesn't mean I have to find another one.

And if I wasn't literate, then we wouldn't be having an argument via posts. Honestly, can't you do any better than that?

These are your tactics so far

1. Call them a bigot to undermine their position.
2. Call them stupid to undermine their position.
3. Deny, deny, deny

That doesn't make you intelligent. That makes you just like 75% of the people who post on General. Good for you, uber elite.

Certainly not in the UK. Giving preference to people just because of their skin colour or sex is a ridiculous idea. My american friend once told me his dad went to a job interview. He was told they'd love to hire him, but they couldn't because they'd already filled up their quota for white males. Does that really happen? :eek:
You kid yourself...how do you think UK universities select their applicants? Quotas... ideally, 90% state school, 52% female and so on. It's at least one aspect of it. And yes, they do actually do that. They do it in South Africa. They may refuse a better applicant a job position on the basis that they are white and that they already have enough of those pesky whities around...

Educating people not to discriminate is one thing...forcing them not to is another, and something I will never agree with.

They can discriminate as much as they want in their private affairs. I do not see the labor market, university admissions, or public policy as "private affairs."

Merely by dint of most universities being public institutions I could agree that they cannot aid such discrimination, if it is indeed such. Then, however, they should ban all forms of choice in the matter, to be consistent.

Universities don't tend to run dorms - they are usually owned by private tenants. They are where I live, anyway. Such luck the law doesn't just apply to the public sector.

I am not assuming conflict, I am assuming a state of affairs which would be preferable to the person engaged, say like choosing a window seat in a plane over an aisle one.

Nice attempt to a gloss over of what it actually is. At best discrimination through laziness.

And lest we forget, humans are animals themselves in origin...perhaps more like the feline than like the ape though.

And lest we forget, we hold humans to higher standards than we do animals.

Suppose what you like. I want to live in a free society. Not one where some opinions are held to be illegal...

Your opinion stops being just an opinion when you turn it into action. And discriminating against a straight person in housing is indeed an action.

Certainly not in the UK. Giving preference to people just because of their skin colour or sex is a ridiculous idea. My american friend once told me his dad went to a job interview. He was told they'd love to hire him, but they couldn't because they'd already filled up their quota for white males. Does that really happen? :eek:

This is, by dictionary definition, racism. It is also restricting freedoms (of the company bosses).

Certainly not in the UK. Giving preference to people just because of their skin colour or sex is a ridiculous idea. My american friend once told me his dad went to a job interview. He was told they'd love to hire him, but they couldn't because they'd already filled up their quota for white males. Does that really happen? :eek:
Yes, but mainly in the corporate world, where they are more closely watched by the ACLU etc. and stand to lose more from lawsuits.

They can discriminate as much as they want in their private affairs. I do not see the labor market, university admissions, or public policy as "private affairs."
I will agree on you with governmentally hired labour, public policy and public universities. No more than that.

You def. don't live here in the US ;)

Patriot Act, anyone?

By the way, is there a form of affirmative action in Europe? I mean, Europeans screwed Africa over more than anyone. I am genuinely ignorant of any information on this subject, so please shed some light.

Oh, yea, Bag, don't reply to that. I need facts.
Yes, we do have affirmative action in some of our countries. It isn't necessarily racially oriented however. It's more usually to do with class or gender and such.

In the sphere of private action, absolutely no, I have no problem. It will be the agent's loss in most cases, something they'll quickly learn. In the case of governmental action, I guess I would object to positive discrimination.
No it is not the agents loss, it is the loss of the unemployed gay black man who can't find a job because the government doesn't give a toss about discrimination in the workplace. I object to positive discrimination too, but treating someone badly because of their race and sexual preference is unacceptable.

No it is not the agents loss, it is the loss of the unemployed gay black man who can't find a job because the government doesn't give a toss about discrimination in the workplace. I object to positive discrimination too, but treating someone badly because of their race and sexual preference is unacceptable.
It is the agent's loss if the victim was actually the better worker...someone else will hire them in a freely competitive market, someone who emphasises on efficiency rather than personally driven prejudices. Furthermore, who I hire or fire is my choice...

No, I did provide a reason. You refused to acknowledge it. Not liking my reason doesn't mean I have to find another one.

You have not provided a reason, but that was not asking either. I wanted an explanation as to how gay peopled are protected from being fondled through this scheme. You haven't

And if I wasn't literate, then we wouldn't be having an argument via posts. Honestly, can't you do any better than that?

Literacy encompasses reading comprehension. It's not just getting those purty symbols up on that shiny box.

These are your tactics so far

1. Call them a bigot to undermine their position.
2. Call them stupid to undermine their position.
3. Deny, deny, deny

Invent, invent, invent!

That doesn't make you intelligent. That makes you just like 75% of the people who post on General. Good for you, uber elite.

Aww, no need to be bitter because you keep failing to answer how this scheme protects gay people from being fondled. The simple truth is, it doesn't. It only "protects" straight people, which is of course more insulting to them, this "need" to be "protected." And thus this whole reason for "protection" is nothing but BS, since it doesn't apply to everyone. And there we are, at the homophobia and the demeaning of the character of straight people in this matter. Ones "need" to be protected, the others are denied the same protection.

1. Universities don't tend to run dorms - they are usually owned by private tenants. They are where I live, anyway. Such luck the law doesn't just apply to the public sector.

2. Nice attempt to a gloss over of what it actually is. At best discrimination through laziness.

3. And lest we forget, we hold humans to higher standards than we do animals.

4. Your opinion stops being just an opinion when you turn it into action. And discriminating against a straight person in housing is indeed an action.
1. Where you live is the key word. As far as I know, in most countries the dorms are run by the school, while frat houses etc. ARE actually private dwellings off campus.

2.That's right, now being lazy is discriminatory. You consider everything discriminatory. Luckily, your definition is all in your head, and no one else is held by it. So no, its not discriminatory.

3. True, because humans are self-aware. Therefore, we are also aware of what we want. If animals get what they want, why shouldn't we?

4. Yes, its an action that is legal in other countries. Just because its illegal in Sweden doesn't mean it applies to everyone. I can pick who I want to live with. Get over it.

Universities don't tend to run dorms - they are usually owned by private tenants. They are where I live, anyway. Such luck the law doesn't just apply to the public sector.
Again, insofar as they are benefitting from some contractual relationship with the university, and said university is public, then discrimination could be undesirable. In the private sphere it is the individual's choice. You are no better than most fascists if you believe you have the right to direct the minds of others.

And lest we forget, we hold humans to higher standards than we do animals.
Yes, by telling them how to think...

Your opinion stops being just an opinion when you turn it into action. And discriminating against a straight person in housing is indeed an action.
Whom I live with, as I said, is my own personal affair. Whom I sell my goods to or whose services I procure is my affair, again. I do not care if this offends the "higher" morality of some. I see little purpose for a society where one is told how to act, and doesn't voluntarily adopt certain positions and ideas.

It is the agent's loss if the victim was actually the better worker...someone else will hire them in a freely competitive market, someone who emphasises on efficiency rather than personally driven prejudices. Furthermore, who I hire or fire is my choice...

Your ability to "hire or fire" is granted at the behest of society. Society can very well slap you on the wrists for doing something it finds unacceptable. Such as firing someone because of no other reason than race, or sexual orientation, or gender, or religion, or whatever. You being in the private sphere is not a bubble that renders your actions hors de society.

Your ability to "hire or fire" is granted at the behest of society. Society can very well slap you on the wrists for doing something it finds unacceptable. Such as firing someone because of no other reason than race, or sexual orientation, or gender, or religion, or whatever. You being in the private sphere is not a bubble that renders your actions hors de society.
So if this beloved society of yours decides that homosexuality is a sin, and then decides to punish you via means of legislation for practising it, it's still okay? Society can speak out against your actions, yes. Freedom of speech exists for that purpose. Coercing you into acting in a certain way, however, is still coercion, even though you may disguise the name. If I have a job to be done, and I am the one paying for it, I will choose who does the job. Not some abstract "society". Lest we forget, society is made up of individual agents...it is not some supra-individual abomination.

1. You have not provided a reason, but that was not asking either. I wanted an explanation as to how gay peopled are protected from being fondled through this scheme. You haven't

2. Literacy encompasses reading comprehension. It's not just getting those purty symbols up on that shiny box.

3. Invent, invent, invent!

4. Aww, no need to be bitter because you keep failing to answer how this scheme protects gay people from being fondled. The simple truth is, it doesn't. It only "protects" straight people, which is of course more insulting to them, this "need" to be "protected." And thus this whole reason for "protection" is nothing but BS, since it doesn't apply to everyone. And there we are, at the homophobia and the demeaning of the character of straight people in this matter. Ones "need" to be protected, the others are denied the same protection.
1. Like I said, I gave you one. You decided it *didn't count*. Unfortunately, although no one mentioned it to you, you aren't an authority on the subject, so you hardly qualify to dismiss anything out of hand.

2. Ah, debate tactic #2

3. And here's #3

4. And I didn't think that sounded bitter. More like a pointed reference to another's personal flaw, by which I mean your elitist manner in your wordings. You know, you might try that *reading comprehension* thing you were talking about.

Also, since gays are statistically rarer than straight people, gay housing could consist of 1 person per room, since there wouldn't be as many, and locks like normal dorm rooms. There, protection. That's 2 reasons. How will you ignore this one.

Again, insofar as they are benefitting from some contractual relationship with the university, and said university is public, then discrimination could be undesirable. In the private sphere it is the individual's choice. You are no better than most fascists if you believe you have the right to direct the minds of others.

As I just wrote - privately owned companies and their actions aren't secluded from society. They act within it, so there is no reason they should get leeway.

Yes, by telling them how to think...

By holding them accountable, and not accepting certain behaviour we accept of animals.

Whom I live with, as I said, is my own personal affair. Whom I sell my goods to or whose services I procure is my affair, again. I do not care if this offends the "higher" morality of some. I see little purpose for a society where one is told how to act, and doesn't voluntarily adopt certain positions and ideas.

It stops being your personal affair as soon as you interact with that other person. Again - your actions do not take place in a void.

Your ability to "hire or fire" is granted at the behest of society. Society can very well slap you on the wrists for doing something it finds unacceptable. Such as firing someone because of no other reason than race, or sexual orientation, or gender, or religion, or whatever. You being in the private sphere is not a bubble that renders your actions hors de society.
Actually, "at-will" employees (those who don't have a contract) can be fired, legally, for any reason. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean its wrong.

As I just wrote - privately owned companies and their actions aren't secluded from society. They act within it, so there is no reason they should get leeway.

By holding them accountable, and not accepting certain behaviour we accept of animals.

It stops being your personal affair as soon as you interact with that other person. Again - your actions do not take place in a void.
LOL
I just realized you're a socialist. I'd been seeing the signs for a while. Well, at least now I understand the irrational thought process.

As I just wrote - privately owned companies and their actions aren't secluded from society. They act within it, so there is no reason they should get leeway.
Why coerce them by law?

By holding them accountable, and not accepting certain behaviour we accept of animals.
Like little children. We punish them using legislation. Even though the economic loss they will suffer and perhaps even the uproar among society would be sufficient...it is the purpose of education to enlighten people. Why bother giving people freedom to choose if this freedom is at best some shallow notion?

It stops being your personal affair as soon as you interact with that other person. Again - your actions do not take place in a void.
It is the affair of the person participating and myself. I do not assent to a society regulating all of my actions, and if the person contracting with me is satisfied with the arrangements, then the deal is done. I will not be held accountable for depriving someone else of an opportunity that I create...if that were so, everyone I chose not to hire could sue me. How silly.

Actually, "at-will" employees (those who don't have a contract) can be fired, legally, for any reason.

http://www.homo.se/
http://www.do.se/
http://www.ho.se/ (etc)

Actually, no, no they can't. Not for "any" reason. There are certain reasons that are illegal.

1. Like I said, I gave you one.

Nope.

And I didn't think that sounded bitter. More like a pointed reference to another's personal flaw, by which I mean your elitist manner in your wordings. You know, you might try that *reading comprehension* thing you were talking about.

This is again where I repeat you still have not explained how this protects gay people from being fondled.

Also, since gays are statistically rarer than straight people, gay housing could consist of 1 person per room, since there wouldn't be as many, and locks like normal dorm rooms. There, protection. That's 2 reasons. How will you ignore this one.

That's discrimination of straight people - giving gay people better accommodation because they are gay. You trap yourself in these discrimination circles. "Separate is not not equal," and unequal is most certainly not equal.

A government has a responsibily to stop discrimination in schools and in the workplace. IT IS WRONG to be racist, IT IS WRONG to be homophobic. That is why there are laws protecting these different groups of people. It is unacceptable to fire someone purely for being gay, and I'm glad most people realise this. But not everyone does, unfortunately, so steps have to be taken to stop discrimination. Otherwise people will think it will be fine to behave this way, and the only people with a good chance of getting a decent job will be straight white males.

A government has a responsibily to stop discrimination in schools and in the workplace. IT IS WRONG to be racist, IT IS WRONG to be homophobic. That is why there are laws protecting these different groups of people. It is unacceptable to fire someone purely for being gay, and I'm glad most people realise this. But not everyone does, unfortunately, so steps have to be taken to stop discrimination. Otherwise people will think it will be fine to behave this way, and the only people with a good chance of getting a decent job will be straight white males.
So teach people to be tolerant...coercing them though is not teaching. It's no better than the "moral elite" of a society enforcing their view of morality on to the rest. The government's arm, so far as people's choice is concerned, however, ought to be limited to its own functionaries.

LOL
I just realized you're a socialist. I'd been seeing the signs for a while. Well, at least now I understand the irrational thought process.
It's a leftie, you must fight him to force him to realise the mistake of our evil ways.

...I mean his evil ways. *Flees*

1. Nope.

2. This is again where I repeat you still have not explained how this protects gay people from being fondled.

3. That's discrimination of straight people - giving gay people better accommodation because they are gay. You trap yourself in these discrimination circles. "Separate is not not equal," and unequal is most certainly not equal.
1. Yes. Do you really want to play the Kindergarten arguing game? Nuh UH! That's the level you exist on now. Good for you.

2. Debate tactic #3. Whoopty-doo. Like I said, you don't have the authority to dismiss my reasons without contemplation. Give up the broken record act.

3. I think straight people won't care. You are the only one who apparently has to bitch about everything. I'm straight, so I can't discriminate against myself. Also, by that definition, affirmative action is discriminatory, as well as making legislation that only helps people of a particular sexual orientation, so now that law you like so much that doesn't allow owners to deny housing to homosexuals is discriminatory because it doesn't help straight people, and therefore illegal. Those circles only exist in YOUR head, and so I'm not bound by them.

So teach people to be tolerant...coercing them though is not teaching. It's no better than the "moral elite" of a society enforcing their view of morality on to the rest. The government's arm, so far as people's choice is concerned, however, ought to be limited to its own functionaries.
No, no, don't you see? You have to be tolerant unless you are a liberal, and you disagree with the person. If that's the case you call out the police and the military and force them to do what you want. Raving lunatics.

It's a leftie, you must fight him to force him to realise the mistake of our evil ways.

...I mean his evil ways. *Flees*
Now, I wasn't actually condemning ALL lefties. Just socialism. And communism. OK, I guess that does take out a large part of the left.

Why coerce them by law?

Why pretend their actions are acceptable as long as they don't get money from the state when there is no difference between the actions?

Like little children. We punish them using legislation. Even though the economic loss they will suffer and perhaps even the uproar among society would be sufficient...it is the purpose of education to enlighten people. Why bother giving people freedom to choose if this freedom is at best some shallow notion?

Nobody has freedom to choose everything ever. Certain compromises to this "freedom" are made when one wishes to live in society. Fine and dandy if you wish to pretend economic loss has ever protected any minority from discrimination, and that you wish to leave consequences of such behaviour up to a democratic mob finding it distasteful enough, but such tyranny of the majority by proxy - letting people get away with things as long as the majority condones them, ultimately putting the protection of minorities in the mercy of that mob - is something modern democratic values are not supposed to encompass.

It is the affair of the person participating and myself. I do not assent to a society regulating all of my actions, and if the person contracting with me is satisfied with the arrangements, then the deal is done. I will not be held accountable for depriving someone else of an opportunity that I create...if that were so, everyone I chose not to hire could sue me. How silly.

No, the silly thing is going "he's black and I that's why I won't hire him." You won't? Fine, your illegal discrimination will have consequences, and those will not be dependent on the popularity du jour of those victim to them.

No, no, don't you see? You have to be tolerant unless you are a liberal, and you disagree with the person. If that's the case you call out the police and the military and force them to do what you want. Raving lunatics.
The only truly tolerant liberals out there are libertarians. All others are deluded if they think they can be qualified by the adjective.

So teach people to be tolerant...coercing them though is not teaching. It's no better than the "moral elite" of a society enforcing their view of morality on to the rest. The government's arm, so far as people's choice is concerned, however, ought to be limited to its own functionaries.
Is it wrong enforcing our morality on everyone else? It's the view that violence is wrong, but not everyone is peaceful. Should we just let people go around axe-murdering everyone if they so wish? :rolleyes:

The only truly tolerant liberals out there are libertarians. All others are deluded if they think they can be qualified by the adjective.
True true. Like I've always said, liberals are very tolerant, as long as you agree with them. And libertarians aren't recognized by many liberals as being liberal, ironically enough. They consider them conservative. Probably because the libertarians don't always agree with them. ;)

Why pretend their actions are acceptable as long as they don't get money from the state when there is no difference between the actions?
Because government is not some tool that can simply be shaped to serve any purpose desired. It is there to protect against positive, but not negative, discrimination.

Nobody has freedom to choose everything ever. Certain compromises to this "freedom" are made when one wishes to live in society. Fine and dandy if you wish to pretend economic loss has ever protected any minority from discrimination, and that you wish to leave consequences of such behaviour up to a democratic mob finding it distasteful enough, but such tyranny of the majority by proxy - letting people get away with things as long as the majority condones them, ultimately putting the protection of minorities in the mercy of that mob - is something modern democratic values are not supposed to encompass.
I am not talking about legal action, I am talking about peer pressure. Modern democratic values stop deserving the name when those who adhere to them start thinking that it is their position to dictate the actions of others. Stop pretending it isn't fascism. That is all it is. Such a society is a worthless engagement at best, one fit for irresponsible, child-like morons. The compromises to be made go this far "An it harm none, do what thou wilst," to paraphrase Wicca, and "So long as it is a contractual agreement between voluntarily consenting adults who are properly informed, it is binding." That is their full extent. Anything more than that is social engineering, and thus, in my view, contemptible.

Don't fool yourself; a majority which presumes itself entitled to legislate against negative discrimination in the private sphere is by no means unlikely to turn into one which condones and actively practises positive discrimination and coercion. It is time we bred responsible adults, and not children we must punish all the time.


No, the silly thing is going "he's black and I that's why I won't hire him." You won't? Fine, your illegal discrimination will have consequences, and those will not be dependent on the popularity du jour of those victim to them.
Governments are made up by people. :rolleyes: Without popular assent they are worthless. Louis XVI learnt this the hard way. It's not really a democracy otherwise, not representative or otherwise.

Is it wrong enforcing our morality on everyone else? It's the view that violence is wrong, but not everyone is peaceful. Should we just let people go around axe-murdering everyone if they so wish? :rolleyes:
"An it harm none, do what ye will". So, umm, no. However, unless you are able to prove, say, how my relationship with another man somehow harms the world at large in positive, and not negative, terms- you have no right to impose your ideals on me.

Is it wrong enforcing our morality on everyone else? It's the view that violence is wrong, but not everyone is peaceful. Should we just let people go around axe-murdering everyone if they so wish? :rolleyes:
You just took something as minor as a possible personal slight, and turned it into murder. Do you know why? Because if you look at it in the terms she specifically stated her point in, it is perfectly reasonable and makes perfect sense. Thus, you had to change it.

Besides, in the US you have the right to life, liberty, and the PURSUIT of happiness. That doesn't necessarily mean you have the right to be happy. Just that you can try to better your situation. So if an employer is happier without an employee, he can pursue that by firing said employee. That's not unreasonable. The employee can pursue happiness by finding employment somewhere where he will be accepted and appreciated. That's also reasonable. And nobody got killed.

1. Yes. Do you really want to play the Kindergarten arguing game? Nuh UH! That's the level you exist on now. Good for you.

You can easily break the circle by actually giving the explanation how it directly protects gay people from being fondled. The fact that you don't is unsurprising as you can't.

I think straight people won't care. You are the only one who apparently has to bitch about everything. I'm straight, so I can't discriminate against myself. Also, by that definition, affirmative action is discriminatory,

Affirmative action is discriminatory - I have never claimed otherwise. It was also found illegal by Swedish courts not long ago, when two immigrants with worse study results were given a place ahead of two native Swedes at a university. The university was fined, and the discriminated people got recompensed.

as well as making legislation that only helps people of a particular sexual orientation, so now that law you like so much that doesn't allow owners to deny housing to homosexuals is discriminatory because it doesn't help straight people, and therefore illegal. Those circles only exist in YOUR head, and so I'm not bound by them.

Had you actually read the website of HomO, you would have seen the law protects straight people, too.

You just took something as minor as a possible personal slight, and turned it into murder. Do you know why? Because if you look at it in the terms she specifically stated her point in, it is perfectly reasonable and makes perfect sense. Thus, you had to change it.

Besides, in the US you have the right to life, liberty, and the PURSUIT of happiness. That doesn't necessarily mean you have the right to be happy. Just that you can try to better your situation. So if an employer is happier without an employee, he can pursue that by firing said employee. That's not unreasonable. The employee can pursue happiness by finding employment somewhere where he will be accepted and appreciated. That's also reasonable. And nobody got killed.
Leave it to the pedants to twist and contort beyond all recognition that which others say.

He, by the way.

You can easily break the circle by actually giving the explanation how it directly protects gay people from being fondled. The fact that you don't is unsurprising as you can't.

Affirmative action is discriminatory - I have never claimed otherwise. It was also found illegal by Swedish courts not long ago, when two immigrants with worse study results were given a place ahead of two native Swedes at a university. The university was fined, and the discriminated people got recompensed.

Had you actually read the website of HomO, you would have seen the law protects straight people, too.
1. I have done so twice, and you dismissed them both offhand. That means its your problem now, not mine, and I won't bother continuing to post reasons if you ignore them. I can, I have, and you ignored them.

2. Well, alrighty then.

3. Yes, but I didn't feel like reading the website. And why would a straight person rent housing from a homosexual? We might get fondled... :fluffle:

"An it harm none, do what ye will". So, umm, no. However, unless you are able to prove, say, how my relationship with another man is somehow harms the world at large in positive, and not negative, terms-
You want me to explain how you being gay harms the world? I'm confused, are you mistaking me for a homophobe? I don't really understand what you are getting at here. :confused:
you have no right to impose your ideals on me.
I'm sorry, why does me debating my opinions on this matter count as imposing? I'm not forcing you to accept my views, I'm just stating what I think. And are you saying I don't have a right to argue? :rolleyes:

Leave it to the pedants to twist and contort beyond all recognition that which others say.

He, by the way.
Yes, I realized that after I posted, but figured it wasn't worth going back and changing. My apologies for the error. And I don't mind it when they do it, just as long as you call them on it. It's interesting how when you pointed out that "society" could just as easily persecute homosexuals, and asked if they also thought that was OK, they went silent, but then they used the same tactic and brought up murder as an analogy for discrimination. Really bad analogy.

Society also persecuted blacks, which I suppose was alright. It also persecuted atheists, evolutionists, and Jews. All of which apparently Bag and co. must be ok with.

You want me to explain how you being gay harms the world? I'm confused, are you mistaking me for a homophobe? I don't really understand what you are getting at here. :confused:
I am using a hypothetical example, not referring specifically to anything you might believe. Mainly, I am distinguishing between positive and negative harm; the second must be curbed in a free society, the second is too vague.

I'm sorry, why does me debating my opinions on this matter count as imposing? I'm not forcing you to accept my views, I'm just stating what I think. And are you saying I don't have a right to argue? :rolleyes:
I never said you should not debate, now did I? Or that you shouldn't argue. I am, however, saying, that no society, whether its morals are benign or malignant, has the right to force them upon free thinking adults. I am demonstrating to you the full effect your line of reasoning could potentially yield.

You want me to explain how you being gay harms the world? I'm confused, are you mistaking me for a homophobe? I don't really understand what you are getting at here. :confused:

I'm sorry, why does me debating my opinions on this matter count as imposing? I'm not forcing you to accept my views, I'm just stating what I think. And are you saying I don't have a right to argue? :rolleyes:
He was referring to your belief that society can impose morals. Since the morals of society arbitrarily change from generation to generation, he and I both believe that they do not count as a reasonable basis for forcing someone to conform.

So teach people to be tolerant...coercing them though is not teaching. It's no better than the "moral elite" of a society enforcing their view of morality on to the rest. The government's arm, so far as people's choice is concerned, however, ought to be limited to its own functionaries.

You are not your property. Your economic decisions - that is, decisions concerning the allocation and exchange of your property - can be regulated without you being "coerced" in the same sense as imposing sexual puritanism would be "coercion."

Because government is not some tool that can simply be shaped to serve any purpose desired. It is there to protect against positive, but not negative, discrimination.

Says who, you? No. Sorry. That's not the only thing its there for. Sure, you might like to think with your wacky libertarian ideas, but, no, not really. And it's not very convincing that you splurt the ideas, either.

I am not talking about legal action, I am talking about peer pressure.

Exactly. You want minorities dependent on popularity for equal treatment.

Modern democratic values stop deserving the name when those who adhere to them start thinking that it is their position to dictate the actions of others. Stop pretending it isn't fascism. That is all it is. Such a society is a worthless engagement at best, one fit for irresponsible, child-like morons. The compromises to be made go this far "An it harm none, do what thou wilst," to paraphrase Wicca, and "So long as it is a contractual agreement between voluntarily consenting adults who are properly informed, it is binding." That is their full extent. Anything more than that is social engineering, and thus, in my view, contemptible.

And you have the gall to talk about childish behaviour - you want bullies to keep being able to bully for as long as the other kids in the school yard don't find the bullied sympathetic enough. That's all your grand ideas are - a tyranny of the majority. Now pretend that's not fascism.

Oh, but I forget - it's "libertarian." 'Nuff said.

Don't fool yourself; a majority which presumes itself entitled to legislate against negative discrimination in the private sphere is by no means unlikely to turn into one which condones and actively practises positive discrimination and coercion. It is time we bred responsible adults, and not children we must punish all the time.

Yes, we'll breed "responsible adults" by letting their childish acts go unchecked. :rolleyes:

Governments are made up by people. :rolleyes: Without popular assent they are worthless. Louis XVI learnt this the hard way. It's not really a democracy otherwise, not representative or otherwise.

And constitutional governments do not leave the protection of minorities up to a popularity contest.

You are not your property. Your economic decisions - that is, decisions concerning the allocation and exchange of your property - can be regulated without you being "coerced" in the same sense as imposing sexual puritanism would be "coercion."
Sorry, but I would never choose to live in a society which adopted that line of reasoning.

I have done so twice, and you dismissed them both offhand. That means its your problem now, not mine, and I won't bother continuing to post reasons if you ignore them. I can, I have, and you ignored them.

As I said - not the least bit surprising.

Yes, but I didn't feel like reading the website. And why would a straight person rent housing from a homosexual? We might get fondled... :fluffle:

There it is again - the weaselling that doesn't hide you actually had nothing from the get go.

Says who, you? No. Sorry. That's not the only thing its there for. Sure, you might like to think with your wacky libertarian ideas, but, no, not really. And it's not very convincing that you splurt the ideas, either.
So, should I now call you the victim of collectivist idiocy to consummate our would-be relationship of political stereotyping? Governments are formed by my assent, and that of others. They would not exist if no one was willing to obey. Therefore, we control them, not vice-versa. They serve a limited purpose. If you believe otherwise, it is the result of your wacky ideas.

Exactly. You want minorities dependent on popularity for equal treatment.
Actually, no. I want government action limited by very precise criteria.


And you have the gall to talk about childish behaviour - you want bullies to keep being able to bully for as long as the other kids in the school yard don't find the bullied sympathetic enough. That's all your grand ideas are - a tyranny of the majority. Now pretend that's not fascism.

Oh, but I forget - it's "libertarian." 'Nuff said.
Positive discrimination. I already made reference to this. Or should we force people to befriend others? Simply not befriending someone, even if it is not based on racist or other motivations, is a form of negative discrimination.

Mock my ideals all you want. You will come to realise I really don't care.

Yes, we'll breed "responsible adults" by letting their childish acts go unchecked. :rolleyes:
No, we breed them by allowing them to make choices of their free volition, and suffering the consequences of these choices, not legally, but as they arise naturally. Sorry if you disagree.

And constitutional governments do not leave the protection of minorities up to a popularity contest.
What makes you think that a government can indefinitely oppose the very individuals which make it up? Constitutions are delightful, and they are also an illusion when a majority not only passively, but actively, calls for their dissolution. A piece of worthless paper if there ever was one...its power comes from being the product of acquiescence.

1. Says who, you? No. Sorry. That's not the only thing its there for. Sure, you might like to think with your wacky libertarian ideas, but, no, not really. And it's not very convincing that you splurt the ideas, either.

2. Exactly. You want minorities dependent on popularity for equal treatment.

3. And you have the gall to talk about childish behaviour - you want bullies to keep being able to bully for as long as the other kids in the school yard don't find the bullied sympathetic enough. That's all your grand ideas are - a tyranny of the majority. Now pretend that's not fascism.

4. Oh, but I forget - it's "libertarian." 'Nuff said.

5. Yes, we'll breed "responsible adults" by letting their childish acts go unchecked. :rolleyes:

6. And constitutional governments do not leave the protection of minorities up to a popularity contest.

1. OK. Just as you don't have to agree with his ideas on what gov'ts should be responsible for, we don't have to agree with your idea of totalitarian regimes being the best alternative.

2. Whereas you want popular opinion to be responsible for minorities.

3. And you'd rather we beat up the bullies, who, incidently, were only bullies because they refused to hang out with the kids they didn't like, and then locked them in a cage.

4. Oh, I forget, its Stalinism... "Nuff said

5. Yes, we'll breed "responsible adults" by killing or locking up all the ones you don't like

6. You haven't been advocating a Constitutional gov't. You support a gov't "by the current majority of the people, for ONLY them, and fuck everyone else who disagrees, because we'll *take care* of them." Thats Communism.

As I said - not the least bit surprising.

There it is again - the weaselling that doesn't hide you actually had nothing from the get go.
*Waves wand
As he speaketh, make it so!

No. I provided two reasons. Get off it.

He was referring to your belief that society can impose morals. Since the morals of society arbitrarily change from generation to generation, he and I both believe that they do not count as a reasonable basis for forcing someone to conform.
It does, we have laws against what is seen as bad behaviour. Do you argue that theft is wrong? Murder? Rape? All of these are punished. We also have laws against discrimination, because is seen as unacceptable. Society isimposing morals on us, it tells us what is right and what is wrong. Would you prefer this not to happen?

Yes, I realized that after I posted, but figured it wasn't worth going back and changing. My apologies for the error. And I don't mind it when they do it, just as long as you call them on it.
It's okay. ;) I'm used to it, and I don't mind correcting.

It's interesting how when you pointed out that "society" could just as easily persecute homosexuals, and asked if they also thought that was OK, they went silent, but then they used the same tactic and brought up murder as an analogy for discrimination. Really bad analogy.
I was using a reductio ad absurdum argument, to show how the very reasoning they adopt can be used in reverse by the same tools it works with. I am not to be held accountable if they misinterpret me.

Society also persecuted blacks, which I suppose was alright. It also persecuted atheists, evolutionists, and Jews. All of which apparently Bag and co. must be ok with.
The whole thing is becoming contradictory at this stage.

If your uncomfortable with you're roomate, for whatever reason, find another one. It's not hard. Gay people and straight people need to learn how to get along. These homophobes are not going to go through their lives without incountering different people. They need to know how to tolerate those people, especially in a place such as college.
In standard dormitory housing you CANT choose your roommate not here that is done by computer

It does, we have laws against what is seen as bad behaviour. Do you argue that theft is wrong? Murder? Rape? All of these are punished. We also have laws against discrimination, because is seen as unacceptable. Society isimposing morals on us, it tells us what is right and what is wrong. Would you prefer this not to happen?
Going by your reasoning, is it then okay if this society's morals change, and it decides to execute all adults above 50 for some random reason (perhaps by argument that they are a burden on society)? Because, I am referring to precise limits on what society can or cannot do...you are referring to a system of unlimited discretion.

It does, we have laws against what is seen as bad behaviour. Do you argue that theft is wrong? Murder? Rape? All of these are punished. We also have laws against discrimination, because is seen as unacceptable. Society isimposing morals on us, it tells us what is right and what is wrong. Would you prefer this not to happen?
Right, but society is arbitrary. Do you understand the difference between laws against murder, rape, theft, assault, and those that we are speaking of? Or laws against homosexuality, Jim Crow laws, and criminalizing disagreeing with the status quo? You do see the difference in degrees, don't you? And realize that we do have to preserve individual rights, since the mob mentality changes at random and isn't reliable for legislating morality?

If a person is a suffering from homosexuality they are called to chastity and should get the same housing assignments of any other person.

Going by your reasoning, is it then okay if this society's morals change, and it decides to execute all adults above 50 for some random reason (perhaps by argument that they are a burden on society)? Because, I am referring to precise limits on what society can or cannot do...you are referring to a system of unlimited discretion.
That is not going to happen, this society won't allow it (particulary as most politicians are quite old :p ). I'm sure a party who wanted to mass murder the oldsters wouldn't get elected anyway. We also have international laws to stop something like that happening. Laws protect people providing they don't harm others in any way. It won't happen and no-one will support it.

That is not going to happen, this society won't allow it (particulary as most politicians are quite old :p ). I'm sure a party who wanted to mass murder the oldsters wouldn't get elected anyway. We also have international laws to stop something like that happening. Laws protect people providing they don't harm others in any way. It won't happen and no-one will support it.
Yeah, just like Hitler could have never been elected in the democratic Weimar Republic... :rolleyes:

Except, he was. And of what value was the Constitution then? None.

Your discussion is not relavent to the issue....should gays be treated seperate but equal to the rest of society. I say that they should be included and treated the same as everyone else as long as they do not let their problem lead them into acts of sodomy and flaming gay behavior that makes others feel ill at ease. If they do act in an inappropriate way they need to be repremanded for the disruption that they have caused.

Why would anyone volunteer for discrimination?



Why is this only set up to "protect" the sensibilities of straight people? What about the gay people who get forced to share a room with another gay person - they suddenly don't have to worry about sexual advances by the other room mate? Why would a gay person be more comfortable with sharing a room with someone who could find them attractive than a straight person? Gay people don't need to be "comfortable" in not having to "worry" about sexual advances, but straight people do?
Absoltutly agree should anyone be forced to room with a roommate that finds them sexually attracted … much better way to have put it

That is not going to happen, this society won't allow it (particulary as most politicians are quite old :p ). I'm sure a party who wanted to mass murder the oldsters wouldn't get elected anyway. We also have international laws to stop something like that happening. Laws protect people providing they don't harm others in any way. It won't happen and no-one will support it.
.......

Society has still committed aggregious crimes over the centuries. Society is fallable. You do understand this? Please, I need to understand whether or not you even agree with this statement.

Your discussion is not relavent to the issue....should gays be treated seperate but equal to the rest of society. I say that they should be included and treated the same as everyone else as long as they do not let their problem lead them into acts of sodomy and flaming gay behavior that makes others feel ill at ease. If they do act in an inappropriate way they need to be repremanded for the disruption that they have caused.
Why should their general “Flaming” attitude have more weight then any other “Attitude”?

Yeah, just like Hitler could have never been elected in the democratic Weimar Republic... :rolleyes:

Except, he was. And of what value was the Constitution then? None.
I don't think he gets it.


Or, more accurately, I think he would have voted for Hitler, and still kept praising *society* straight through WWII.

Why should their general “Flaming” attitude have more weight then any other “Attitude”?

If sombody has a roomate who is flaming gay and committing acts as such they should have a way to escape the problem. They should be assigned a new roomate and the gay one should be repremanded.

If sombody has a roomate who is flaming gay and committing acts as such they should have a way to escape the problem. They should be assigned a new roomate and the gay one should be repremanded.
Reprimanded on what grounds?

I don't think he gets it.


Or, more accurately, I think he would have voted for Hitler, and still kept praising *society* straight through WWII.

Talk about raising the level of debate. 5 points for being a non-relavent topic and 25 points for the Nazi reference. Really classy.

Why should their general “Flaming” attitude have more weight then any other “Attitude”?
I think he is plainly stating he doesn't like homosexuality, and that factors in. And it seems apparent he isn't worried about who that might offend. So, never mind the tiptoeing through the tulips.

Talk about raising the level of debate. 5 points for being a non-relavent topic and 25 points for the Nazi reference. Really classy.
It is not irrelevant for the purpose of what I am debating. I brought in the Nazis, but to illustrate a point. So blame me, if you must.

Talk about raising the level of debate. 5 points for being a non-relavent topic and 25 points for the Nazi reference. Really classy.
Since you haven't been in on the discussion thats been going on for, oh, about 12 pages, I'll pretend you didn't post. It's relevant because we are all very aware of how we got to this post, and its been on topic. So, if you want to post and look like you know what you are talking about, feel free to read back.

If sombody has a roomate who is flaming gay and committing acts as such they should have a way to escape the problem. They should be assigned a new roomate and the gay one should be repremanded.

Repremanded on what grounds, having sex in his room?

OK, provided you would also allow the straight guy who has sex with a woman in his room, and offends his gay roomate, to be repremanded as well.

Right, but society is arbitrary. Do you understand the difference between laws against murder, rape, theft, assault, and those that we are speaking of? Or laws against homosexuality, Jim Crow laws, and criminalizing disagreeing with the status quo? You do see the difference in degrees, don't you? And realize that we do have to preserve individual rights, since the mob mentality changes at random and isn't reliable for legislating morality?
I see the difference. Different punishments apply for different crimes. The point I am making is that laws are made to protect people. Individual rights are all well and good, as long as they don't harm anyone else. Firing someone is harmful, being unemployed isn't good. Especially for long periods of time because everyone in your country is homophobic, as the government doesn't give a toss about people discriminating. That's why we need laws to protect people being dismissed unfairly.

It is not irrelevant for the purpose of what I am debating. I brought in the Nazis, but to illustrate a point. So blame me, if you must.
Of course, we are bad, bad people. Heaven forbid we use a valid example....

Repremanded on what grounds, having sex in his room?

OK, provided you would also allow the straight guy who has sex with a woman in his room, and offends his gay roomate, to be repremanded as well.
Agreed if having sex in ones room is the broken rule as long as it is applied evenly

Yeah, just like Hitler could have never been elected in the democratic Weimar Republic... :rolleyes:

Except, he was. And of what value was the Constitution then? None.
I'm talking about the modern western world. Why are you bringing up things that happened a while back? Can you realistically see the UK starting to mass murder its own people? It just wouldn't happen now.

I see the difference. Different punishments apply for different crimes. The point I am making is that laws are made to protect people. Individual rights are all well and good, as long as they don't harm anyone else. Firing someone is harmful, being unemployed isn't good. Especially for long periods of time because everyone in your country is homophobic, as the government doesn't give a toss about people discriminating. That's why we need laws to protect people being dismissed unfairly.
Then, by this logic, all firing should be outlawed, all discrimination (and I don't mean of the negative kind) in choosing employees should be eliminated. We should hire whomever comes first (we're still discriminating), and we're stuck with them.

Your conception of law is that it is an end, and not a means, which may be commonly accepted, but by no means ideal. Hence, it does not only protect. It can be used for anything. A legal system which "protects" against negative discrimination is dealing with a very vague notion...hence its discretionary powers are wide.

If someone fires a more able homosexual in favour of a less able heterosexual, they will suffer economic loss. A competitor (in a properly free market) who hires the more able individual will gain vis-a-vis their competitor. Plus, the discriminating employer (now in the negative sense) will be likely shouted down in society, as in a society with a more or less liberal educational system, it is unlikely the majority would endorse such behaviour. So already their is significant punishment involved.

.......

Society has still committed aggregious crimes over the centuries. Society is fallable. You do understand this? Please, I need to understand whether or not you even agree with this statement.
Yeah, and I'm not discussing history.

I'm talking about the modern western world. Why are you bringing up things that happened a while back? Can you realistically see the UK starting to mass murder its own people? It just wouldn't happen now.
The Weimar Republic, at its time, was one of the most free democracies ever created. It was part of the "modern Western world". That changed. People command government. Their desires shape it. It happened in Germany, it can happen again. Don't delude yourself into thinking Constitutions are a magical panacea against human fallibility.

And, by the way, your ideas are far from being the basis of the West. The idea of law as an end was very much part of the non-Western world at the time.

I see the difference. Different punishments apply for different crimes. The point I am making is that laws are made to protect people. Individual rights are all well and good, as long as they don't harm anyone else. Firing someone is harmful, being unemployed isn't good. Especially for long periods of time because everyone in your country is homophobic, as the government doesn't give a toss about people discriminating. That's why we need laws to protect people being dismissed unfairly.
Right, but there are other job options out there. You cannot force a private business owner to hire people he doesn't want working for him, or to keep employees that he wishes to terminate, because then you are harming free enterprise, and the laws you institute will be abused. And ALL business owners are not homophobic, homosexuals would get hired somewhere else. Are you telling me a major corporation like Microsoft would fire an intelligent, productive software engineer because they were gay? That ludicrous...

At this point in time, homosexuality is sufficiently protected by the sensibilities of people that it doesn't need to be protected by legislation. And what good is having a job if your employer can't stand you and won't promote you? There's no opportunity for advancement, your pay will be poor, and it's going to be a shitty environment. You won't be happy.

Yeah, and I'm not discussing history.
History comes and goes in cycles.

Then, by this logic, all firing should be outlawed, all discrimination (and I don't mean of the negative kind) in choosing employees should be eliminated. We should hire whomever comes first (we're still discriminating), and we're stuck with them.
No. When firing someone forms must be filled out and the person fired can always appeal if they were dismissed unfairly.

If someone fires a more able homosexual in favour of a less able heterosexual, they will suffer economic loss. A competitor (in a properly free market) who hires the more able individual will gain vis-a-vis their competitor. Plus, the discriminating employer (now in the negative sense) will be likely shouted down in society, as in a society with a more or less liberal educational system, it is unlikely the majority would endorse such behaviour. So already their is significant punishment involved.
I believe a company should consider the well being of all its employees. There is more to think about than purely making a profit and doing better than their competitors. Forget the gain/loss of the company, what of the fired person? This person has just lost their job, that is a serious life changing event and getting fired is never good. Especially over something stupid like your boss just not liking gays. We need laws to prevent unfair dismissal.