This upsets me

[Palba_Noruda]

.

I myself am Bi.

Everyone has the right to their moral views.

Are you bi by moral choice?

What does being bi mean to you?

 

[Wyldfire]

Are you bi by moral choice?

What does being bi mean to you?

It means I have a man and a woman that I have sexual relations with. It means that to me it is perfectly natural to be with who ever I wish to be with. It means what it means to me.

I don't try to force anyone to accept my beliefs. I don't try to take others' freedom of choice away from them by making them accept my beliefs.

Now to really throw one at you. I could live with just men. I could live with just women. It makes me very very happy that I don't have to live with just one or the other.

Face it, people are different. Everyone has their own beliefs and morals. Mine are different than yours. I think it's foolish to try and force anyone into believing anything they don't want to believe in.

 

[none2_none2]

Those of you who are okay with this kid's behavior - what if he didn't want a black roommate? He doesn't have to know the person AT ALL. But let's say he found his picture on Facebook, saw his roommate was black, and wanted to change his room assignment. How would that be any different from this situation?

Etoile, I can see both sides of the situation. You can make rules & laws until you are blue in the face, but you cannot force a change on someone's mind. If you try, in the long run it most likely will back fire on you. Where do you draw the line on forcing people to think and feel a certain way? As I have said in prior posts a long time ago, even the very nature of gender sexuality is rather biased. Yet LGBT proponents want to tell people to allow our particular biases because it is based on genes. Why not have a goal to let just people be and simply encourage them not to hate what they do not understand?

The practical bottom line is that IF there is no distorted benefit for the discrimination -- ie the one who wants to be with someone else gets a better dorm room, etc -- then I'd say let them part. If that person is ever going to change their mind, it won't be based on a time when they were forced to room with someone they didn't like. It will be based on "freely" observing one day that someone from the disliked group wasn't so bad after all.

Personally, I'm glad I'm not completely out. I don't want anti-gay people nor sympathizers trying to make my sexuality into my total definition. My sexuality is only an adjective to my definition. Furthermore, I know all about not being wanted. As I was picked on for having long hair (to cover a birth defect), for having a birth defect, for having divorced parents, and loads of other things. It hurt quite a bit. But in hindsight, I am glad that I saw people for their real attitudes and that they freely expressed them. By doing so, I knew who my friends were and who weren't. Imagine an even worse devastating scenario if you found out years later that your friends were only friends because the teacher said they would fail or punish them if they did otherwise.

In situations where such discriminatory attitudes truly impact you (ie refuse to do CPR, refuse care, refuse food, equal educational opportunities, etc), then yes the full length of the law should be used. However, in the case of something like dorm rooms, as long as other equally good rooms are available, then by all means keep them separate.

 

[Palba_Noruda]

It means I have a man and a woman that I have sexual relations with. It means that to me it is perfectly natural to be with who ever I wish to be with. It means what it means to me.

I don't try to force anyone to accept my beliefs. I don't try to take others' freedom of choice away from them by making them accept my beliefs.

Now to really throw one at you. I could live with just men. I could live with just women. It makes me very very happy that I don't have to live with just one or the other.

Face it, people are different. Everyone has their own beliefs and morals. Mine are different than yours. I think it's foolish to try and force anyone into believing anything they don't want to believe in.

So I guess you think there's a choice, huh?

 

[sugaredwalls]

WTF?????

Well, gee, thanks for equating sexual orientation with serial rape!

Gee, isn't a refreshing change to be compared to a serial rapist instead of a pedophile?

I hate it when being gay is compared to that shit, it's such a stupid and irrelevant argument.

 

[none2_none2]

This post doesn't even make sense. Did you mean "I would NOT choose an undersexed male of any persuasion?"

Could you please define "weird cock fetish?" Would that encompass anybody who likes to suck dick? Is that like saying 99% of straight men have a weird tit fetish?

As for your experiences with gay and bisexual men... Do you want attention? Are you arrogant? Do you want cock?

I'm sorry if English is not your first language. I specifically stated:

"...I'd be open to a mature acting female roommate. As for males, I would choose an undersexed male of any persuasion. I don't want the driveway to turn into another adult bookstore parking lot..."

What part of that do you not understand? How could you possibly interpreted "would choose" to mean "would NOT choose". Your reinterpretation of what I wrote makes no sense.

As for my experiences with gay and bisexual men as room mates, what do you need to know? Why would I want sexual attentions from someone who is just supposed to be a room mate?

 

[Wyldfire]

So I guess you think there's a choice, huh?

I'm not sure about that honestly. For me personally there is a choice. For you or any others, I can't say.

It honestly doesn't affect my opinion on the original subject though. No one should be forced to live with someone that there morals oppose. Put it the other way around, and say the gay guy couldn't feel secure in living with a straight guy. Would there be any news story here?

 

[Etoile]

I find it interesting that no one has addressed my question. How is "I don't want a gay roommate" morally defensible when "I don't want a black roommate" is (presumably) not?

 

[Palba_Noruda]

I As for males, I would choose an undersexed male of any persuasion. I don't want the driveway to turn into another adult bookstore parking lot..."

Okay, this is the part I don't understand. I have no idea how these two sentences go together. Wouldn't an undersexed male be more likely to visit an adult bookstore? This is where I got confused.

I'm not sure about that honestly. For me personally there is a choice. For you or any others, I can't say.

It honestly doesn't affect my opinion on the original subject though. No one should be forced to live with someone that there morals oppose. Put it the other way around, and say the gay guy couldn't feel secure in living with a straight guy. Would there be any news story here?

A person does not choose what day he is born. A person does not choose his skin color. A person does not choose his sexuality. When a person believes these things, morality is not relevant when considering sexuality.

To consider sexuality a moral issue is to be a homophobe and a hater. There are a lot of them. Plenty of queer people even wrestle with the issue themselves. To be a homophobe and a hater is to de-humanize the gays; it is to refuse to see the human spark that is within. To understand that homosexuality has nothing to do with morality and to understand that homosexuality is not a choice is to recognize and affirm human fucking dignity.

This is not news in the queer community.

 

[Etoile]

A person does not choose what day he is born.

This is an excellent point. Perhaps instead of using race as a comparison, I should use birthdays. For example, when screening for a roommate, I refuse anyone who was born under the sign of the Horse or the Snake, because I am a Monkey and the placemat at my local Chinese restaurant tells me I should avoid them.

Makes sense, right?

 

[A_Kefka]

Those of you who are okay with this kid's behavior - what if he didn't want a black roommate? He doesn't have to know the person AT ALL. But let's say he found his picture on Facebook, saw his roommate was black, and wanted to change his room assignment. How would that be any different from this situation?

I don't think equating this to an argument about race is quite the right metaphor. This would be more like if a woman was assigned to room with a man and wasn't comfortable with that. Or a man who wasn't comfortable sharing a room with a woman. No one would thinnk of forcing someone to room with the oposite gender, whether or not anything negative of a sexual nature were likely to happen.

 

[Etoile]

I don't think equating this to an argument about race is quite the right metaphor. This would be more like if a woman was assigned to room with a man and wasn't comfortable with that. Or a man who wasn't comfortable sharing a room with a woman. No one would thinnk of forcing someone to room with the oposite gender, whether or not anything negative of a sexual nature were likely to happen.

This implies that all gay people will automatically want to have sex with the person they are assigned to room with. Is that really what you mean to say?

 

[Wyldfire]

A person does not choose what day he is born. A person does not choose his skin color. A person does not choose his sexuality. When a person believes these things, morality is not relevant when considering sexuality.

To consider sexuality a moral issue is to be a homophobe and a hater. There are a lot of them. Plenty of queer people even wrestle with the issue themselves. To be a homophobe and a hater is to de-humanize the gays; it is to refuse to see the human spark that is within. To understand that homosexuality has nothing to do with morality and to understand that homosexuality is not a choice is to recognize and affirm human fucking dignity.

This is not news in the queer community.

I can see the viewpoint even if I don't understand it. As said, in my case, I can, and did, indeed choose. Mayhaps sexuality is not always as chemically induced as you would make it out to be. I have no doubt in many cases it is, but I refuse to believe sexuality is as intractable as nationality or date of birth.

I can also see that you personally have issue with this subject. I think you're letting your personal issues cloud your view of the topic. The topic is that a boy is being painted as a bad person for choosing to ask for a change of rooms. For asking for something anyone can ask for for any reason. The reason this is news worthy at all is that the gay community has chosen to take affront to it.

I can't speak for the majority of Christians seeing as I am not one myself, but many branches of that faith take exception to homosexuality and always have. Isn't Christianity supposed to be a faith of peace? And what about the Muslim faith? A faith that has existed for centuries? What is their stand on homosexuality?

We pagans are one of the few faiths that doesn't really take a stance on it. I don't speak for the rest of my faith either. I speak for myself and myself alone.

Would this have been different if a black or Latino kid had asked to be moved because his room mate was a southern white kid who's face book page said he had leanings towards the KKK? Would it be different if a Latino kid wasn't comfortable with a black room mate? Are we all supposed to be of the same mold? Has individuality and freedom of choice been suspended? From many reactions here they have been.

 

[Etoile]

Would it be different if a Latino kid wasn't comfortable with a black room mate?

I've asked this question at least twice now and gotten no answer whatsoever. (Although I didn't specify the race of the kid doing the asking.)

The KKK roommate question strikes me as similar to the serial rapist question. Both imply that the roommate has a violent history/tendency. Simply being gay, or simply being black, or simply being Jewish, doesn't imply those things.

I still want to know how rejecting a gay roommate is morally defensible while rejecting a black roommate is (presumably) not.

BTW, as anyone who uses Facebook knows, you can learn a lot about a person based on their Facebook profile - I don't like the assumption that the refusal was based solely on sexuality, and not a combination of factors from the profile.

 

[A_Kefka]

This implies that all gay people will automatically want to have sex with the person they are assigned to room with. Is that really what you mean to say?

I disagree, I don't want to have sex with every woman I see, but you still wouldn't think of forcing a woman to room with me if she wasn't comfortable with it.

 

[none2_none2]

Okay, this is the part I don't understand. I have no idea how these two sentences go together. Wouldn't an undersexed male be more likely to visit an adult bookstore? This is where I got confused.

I guess you still don't understand what I'm saying. When you choose a roommate (again room mate is someone you share a house with -- not someone you share your bed with), you typically want someone who doesn't upset your household. An undersexed male, most likely wouldn't invite a lot of people to the house for sex. For instance, maybe all he does is masturbate himself before he goes to bed once in a while. Whereas many oversexed males bring home many partners all the time. I knew a guy who was highly sexed. Even when I was visiting his house, it wasn't that uncommon for guys to come knocking at his door at all hours of the night to have sex with him. If that was my house, I would have kicked him out. I don't want lots of different cars and traffic at all hours of the night making the neighbors think its a whore house. The reference to an adult book store is because their parking lot has traffic coming and going 24/7. That is not what my driveway should be like.

A person does not choose what day he is born. A person does not choose his skin color. A person does not choose his sexuality. When a person believes these things, morality is not relevant when considering sexuality.

To consider sexuality a moral issue is to be a homophobe and a hater. There are a lot of them. Plenty of queer people even wrestle with the issue themselves. To be a homophobe and a hater is to de-humanize the gays; it is to refuse to see the human spark that is within. To understand that homosexuality has nothing to do with morality and to understand that homosexuality is not a choice is to recognize and affirm human fucking dignity.
This is not news in the queer community.

Though this wasn't directed at me, I cannot relate to what you are saying at all. To me the most de-humanizing thing within the gay community itself is to bring sexuality down to the level of our genes. We have turned sexualty into this attitude, you have to give me rights because "I cannot help myself". If an averaged sized guy marries a dwarf female, and people give him funny looks, does he have to say the attraction was genetic? If a real young guy marries an elderly woman, and people give him funny looks, does he have to say he couldn't help himself because it was genetic? No, such guys would simply say, it's nobody's damn business who they love.

What if they find some gay gene, and yet some guys without that gene still engage in gay sex or even worse fall in love with another man? Should we condemn them? If a guy with the gay gene ends up loving a woman, is he a traitor to "his people"? What if no gay gene or gay hormone in the womb is ever found? Will you feel obligated to seek help to change because you cannot "prove" you HAD to be this way?

The older I get, the less "gay" I feel, not because my preferences have changed, not because my hormones have stopped working, but rather because I'm tired of some other gays trying to "standardize" sexuality. If you want to see the human spark within, drop the pretense that we are some kind of puppets whose biology/psychology (genes, hormones, bad mothering) pulls the strings. I have sex and love whom I choose to love. If society cannot deal with it, fuck them. I don't need to go out and find some reason for them to accept me and give me rights because I couldn't help myself.

 

[Lobo_8]

No matter who I was being roomed with I would give it a shot. This includes those of a Middle Eastern dissent who are Muslim. That may sound raciest, and it probably is. I've spent 3 years killing and watching my closest friends be killed by these people. I now have an innate caution around them. Does that mean that they are all trying to kill me or those I care about? NO, which is why I would give it a shot. If it didn't work out for whatever reason, then it doesn't work out.

This kid should at least try to be room mates. If he can't get around HIS issues then move out, but attempting to move out without trying...that is disgusting and why hate crimes still happen today.

-Burns

 

[Etoile]

I disagree, I don't want to have sex with every woman I see, but you still wouldn't think of forcing a woman to room with me if she wasn't comfortable with it.

That's you personally, but what do you think the primary basis is for separating the sexes? Suggesting that a gay roommate couldn't room together for the same reason opposite sexes couldn't room together is suggesting that there is a possibility of sexual predation.

 

[A_Kefka]

That's you personally, but what do you think the primary basis is for separating the sexes? Suggesting that a gay roommate couldn't room together for the same reason opposite sexes couldn't room together is suggesting that there is a possibility of sexual predation.

That implies that most straight men would have the inclination to force themselves on a woman and thats why genders are seperated. I don't think thats how it is (likely because the idea of an unwilling partner truly disgusts me). Or that just because there is an attraction the risk of something like that happening, however small, is too much of a risk. Which would apply to rooming with a gay roommate.

 

[Etoile]

That implies that most straight men would have the inclination to force themselves on a woman and thats why genders are seperated. I don't think thats how it is (likely because the idea of an unwilling partner truly disgusts me). Or that just because there is an attraction the risk of something like that happening, however small, is too much of a risk. Which would apply to rooming with a gay roommate.

You've just answered the question, then. The idea that rooming with a gay person is unacceptable is inappropriate, because most people don't have an interest in forcing themselves on each other. So there we go.

 

[HarlotMinx]

I find it interesting that no one has addressed my question. How is "I don't want a gay roommate" morally defensible when "I don't want a black roommate" is (presumably) not?

Why is it unacceptable to want to not room with a black roommate on the basis of color alone? I mean, in any situation where someone is unhappy how often do we here "suck it up or leave"? Is leaving no longer a option either? A person does not have to be accepting of other cultures, races, religions, or sexes. The constitution doesn't say everyone must love each other, it however has been interpreted to infer that you can't actively discriminate but is leaving a situation discrimination? I mean let say I was being bunked with a southern baptist from Texas (not that anything is wrong with southern baptists or Texans but for the sake of a argument) should I be allowed to ask to move on the basis I don't feel safe in my room? Is that situation more or less acceptable than if they were a black man from say Philadelphia? And if the situation is less acceptable is it based on skin or location?

But what if say there was no situation where I was fearful of my situation? Lets say I just have a moral objection? Does the fact that I have a moral objection mean I'm forbidden from leaving a situation? Do people not have the right to leave a situation because it's politically incorrect? I mean, yes he IS discriminating against this youth and yes it's slimeballish and yes it's hurtful. But we're talking about whether someone has the right to leave and it comes down to, nobody should be forced to take part in a situation in which they aren't comfortable with and that includes being tolerant. As long as he isn't actively threatening this kid or impairing his liberties then let him have his other room, it's his loss and frankly it's not our job to impart tolerance on him.

Sorry Etoile, this isn't all directed at you and I get you weren't actually saying that leaving a room because a person is black is unacceptable I just used you as a diving board for my argument.

Btw all, I've come to this conclusion after being rejected or having people remove themselves from me by people IN the LGBT because I wasn't the right type of LGBT. Being queer doesn't make us morally superior or give us the "in" on any special wisdom of acceptance we can be just as bad as everyone else.... namely because we ARE everyone else. But you know what, it's our right to be human.

 

[gloriann]

This discussion has taken an interesting turn.

Everyone has a right to their own opinion. Everyone also has a right to do whatever they please, within the limits of the law. I don't really think anyone is arguing those points.

What irked me about the original situation was the hypocrisy of the parents; the oh-so-tolerant become not-so-much when it comes to gays.

Have we been reading variations of that hypocrisy in this thread? You tell me...

 

[Etoile]

Sorry Etoile, this isn't all directed at you and I get you weren't actually saying that leaving a room because a person is black is unacceptable I just used you as a diving board for my argument.

Totally cool, I'm happy to provoke discussion. That's really all I was trying to do - just point out that "most people" would say declining a roommate on the basis of skin color is silly/inappropriate/objectionable while declining a roommate on the basis of orientation is okay. Nothing is universal, and indeed if roommates can't get along, it's going to be a shitty year for both of them. College freshmen especially have a hard time adjusting to living with a stranger, let alone one they don't like, and as a result they'll struggle more with their academics, etc. So I'm not saying at all that the kids should be forced to room together...only that it's silly to defend the choice on the basis of orientation if you will not also defend on the basis of skin color.

 

[scotsmitch2001]

the parents?

This discussion has taken an interesting turn.

Everyone has a right to their own opinion. Everyone also has a right to do whatever they please, within the limits of the law. I don't really think anyone is arguing those points.

What irked me about the original situation was the hypocrisy of the parents; the oh-so-tolerant become not-so-much when it comes to gays.

Have we been reading variations of that hypocrisy in this thread? You tell me...

As per usual,and Ive noticed this with other threads, the argument that I think you were lookin for got sidetracked into a "what I would do" situation. I agree with you ,gloriann,surely the problem is with the parents. They are only reinforcing their sons homophobia

 

[Dyke_Writer]

I'm somewhat torn on this.
My initial reaction was; 'How ridiculous, live where you're told and if you don't like the person, then request a move'. But having looked through the thread and the other areas that have been raised, I don't know.
- Maybe this kid who wants to move rooms knows he has a problem with gay folks so rather than getting kicked out of college, he's asking to move to save himself trouble? Selfish but somewhat sensible in itself. Surely if this were the case, it's better that he removes himself from the situation before there is any sort of confrontation. This is a better story to hear than; homophobe kills roommate?

- Maybe he's a closet-case and is highly attracted to this new room mate and his parents, religious beliefs or some other factor is opposed to homosexuality so he is trying to remove himself from temptation.

There's a lot going on that we don't know so, while I don't really agree with it, I think its better that he's asking to move before there's any trouble.