Is Your Roommate... Ambiguous?

chriscaffee · Post by **chriscaffee** » Thu Dec 02, 2004 11:59 am

My cousin has requested that I ask my roommate's orientation multiple times. He seems awfully interested in issues dealing with homosexuals. It's a very popular topic for him and he spends God awful amounts of time on the phone.

Even if he is straight as a sexy mother fucker like myself, he is still really feminine. I was just wondering if any of you other college dude and dudettes have been in such a situation. Also, it doesn't have to be gay in the traditional sense, but in the "this person sucks" sense.

And I don't hate gay people, I just think it's, you know, sort of weird that a gay guy would bunk with a non-gay guy (or even the unlikely event) that a gay guy would bunk with another gay guy. I mean, seems to me that if this is the case there is no reason why I couldn't have a female roommate. I think the only way to make it fair would for gay guys to be stuck with lesbian roommates. Otherwise you defeat the whole purpose of gender segregation. But that's just me.

Double-S- · Post by **Double-S-** » Thu Dec 02, 2004 12:25 pm

chriscaffee wrote:I think the only way to make it fair would for gay guys to be stuck with lesbian roommates. Otherwise you defeat the whole purpose of gender segregation. But that's just me.

See, but then all guys would claim to be gay.

chriscaffee · Post by **chriscaffee** » Thu Dec 02, 2004 12:29 pm

But it would be no different from the current situation. Except it wouldn't be just gay people that room with people they are attracted and don't share that attraction.

Grant · Post by **Grant** » Thu Dec 02, 2004 12:39 pm

How would you prove such a thing, though? If he can suck thirteen cocks in under a minute, he's gay?

Anyway, I guess there was sort of a problem with that in this building last year. Some guys kept showering together and the RAs had to keep, er, separating them.

Post by **Delphine** » Thu Dec 02, 2004 12:44 pm

What about bisexual people? Transgender people? Hemaphodites? Asexuals?

chriscaffee wrote: think the only way to make it fair would for gay guys to be stuck with lesbian roommates. Otherwise you defeat the whole purpose of gender segregation.

...but you create segregation by sexuality, which is a whole other issue, and anyone doing so will find the HRC/ACLU/GLADD up their ass.

Amazing Grant wrote:Anyway, I guess there was sort of a problem with that in this building last year. Some guys kept showering together and the RAs had to keep, er, separating them.

Do pictures exist, and how much do they cost?

Grant · Post by **Grant** » Thu Dec 02, 2004 12:58 pm

For no cost (though feel free to send me a check for, say, 50 dollars)!

chriscaffee · Post by **chriscaffee** » Thu Dec 02, 2004 1:14 pm

...but you create segregation by sexuality, which is a whole other issue, and anyone doing so will find the HRC/ACLU/GLADD up their ass.

It's nice to know those groups are consistent about their veiws on segregation.

Post by **Delphine** » Thu Dec 02, 2004 1:35 pm

Have I mentioned that I dislike the HRC, ACLU, and GLADD, and that they really need to stop being on my side, because they make my side look stupid? Gay rights? Awesome. Gay supremacy? Waaaaaaait a second.

chriscaffee · Post by **chriscaffee** » Thu Dec 02, 2004 1:56 pm

My theory is that activist groups go too far on the principle that there will be a "compromise." The more off center their demands, the closer to center the compromise will be. Maybe. The only one of those acronyms I know is ACLU: protecting every amendment, except for the second.

Zeta · Post by **Zeta** » Thu Dec 02, 2004 7:41 pm

Chris pretty much has the right idea. We're always going to get the short end of the stick no matter what we ask for. By asking for more than we want, hopefully we end up with JUST what we want.

And I don't hate gay people, I just think it's, you know, sort of weird that a gay guy would bunk with a non-gay guy (or even the unlikely event) that a gay guy would bunk with another gay guy. I mean, seems to me that if this is the case there is no reason why I couldn't have a female roommate. I think the only way to make it fair would for gay guys to be stuck with lesbian roommates. Otherwise you defeat the whole purpose of gender segregation. But that's just me.

I had thought the whole point was to prevent unwanted pregnancies. And you know - it does still work that way. Even if it doesn't prevent steamy gay sex.

chriscaffee · Post by **chriscaffee** » Thu Dec 02, 2004 7:42 pm

We have an abortion clinic for that.

Post by **Delphine** » Thu Dec 02, 2004 9:24 pm

chriscaffee wrote:We have an abortion clinic for that.

And there are no girls out there who are against having an abortion.

chriscaffee · Post by **chriscaffee** » Thu Dec 02, 2004 10:22 pm

Condoms and spermicide.

Post by **Segaholic2** » Thu Dec 02, 2004 10:24 pm

Castration.

chriscaffee · Post by **chriscaffee** » Thu Dec 02, 2004 10:24 pm

Ouch.

Zeta · Post by **Zeta** » Thu Dec 02, 2004 10:24 pm

We have an abortion clinic for that.

You won't by the time Bush is done Christianizing the world.

chriscaffee · Post by **chriscaffee** » Thu Dec 02, 2004 10:40 pm

I don't really support abortions.

I doubt Bush will be able to make them illegal.

Dark Dolphin · Post by **Dark Dolphin** » Thu Dec 02, 2004 11:32 pm

Actually, he's pretty close to making it happen. With congress on his side and spaces opening up on the supreme court, he can do pretty much anything he wants.

chriscaffee · Post by **chriscaffee** » Thu Dec 02, 2004 11:34 pm

For the sake or irresponsible unprotected sex, let's hope it doesn't happen.

Zeta · Post by **Zeta** » Thu Dec 02, 2004 11:43 pm

For the sake of women who want control over their bodies, and a population that doesn't want to be forced to live under extremist religious ideals they don't necessarily support - let's hope it doesn't happen.

chriscaffee · Post by **chriscaffee** » Thu Dec 02, 2004 11:52 pm

They should have excercised more control over their bodies before the conception. Seriously. Unwanted pregnancies actually come from irresponsible sex. That other stuff is just an excuse to be irresponsible and not have to deal with the consequences. Whether is is valid or not is irrelevant as the issue stems from people being dickweeds. If people weren't dickweeds it would be a non-issue altogether.

Condoms and spermicide aren't a big deal. Ya know, I'm willing to bet they are cheaper then the operation. Hell in our "sucky" economy you think people would have a tighter grip on their wallets.

Why bother? I'm not going to convert you anymore then you will convert me.

Post by **Esrever** » Fri Dec 03, 2004 2:38 am

chriscaffee wrote:Condoms and spermicide aren't a big deal.

They also aren't 100% effective. Even if they work 99 times out of 100, well... you don't think you're going to have sex more than 100 times in your life?

And what about ladies who get pregnant as a result of rape? Sucks to be them, I guess. Enjoy the baby!

daytonafathead · Post by **daytonafathead** » Fri Dec 03, 2004 7:15 am

in a sex related note, they found a vaccine that cures AIDS but not HIV. AIDS can return though, but they're close to a cure.

Double-S- · Post by **Double-S-** » Fri Dec 03, 2004 8:56 am

Oh God not an abortion argument.

I just had to endure one in my philosophy class for the past months. I've heard every argument posted here and dozens more, and almost all of them are retarded!

chriscaffee · Post by **chriscaffee** » Fri Dec 03, 2004 9:13 am

Let's be honest here. The majority of abortions are not the result of rape. As for the chances that contraceptives fail, yes they can. Again, the purpose of sex is to reproduce, it also happens to be fun. It's like when people eat a bunch of junk food and get fat and wonder why.

Regardless or rape or failure rate of condoms, abortion is still cover for irresponsible behavior. That is why I have never really supported it. It promotes irresponsibility because if you can get an abortion you don't need to worry about consequences. That's the message. I don't agree with that message.

And there are adoption agencies so even if abortions are made illegal and the mother is a law abiding citizen then she can just dump her baby on somebody else' doorstep. She still doesn't need to take any responsibility.

Again it's not the act of "killing babies" that I disagree with. It's the "I'm going to do whatever the fuck I want and then if anything unpleasant or uncomfortable happens as a result then I'm just going to eliminate it so I don't have to actually deal with it. Then I'm going to do it all over again." attitude.