sdyer@bbnccv.UUCP (Steve Dyer) (03/26/85)
Having read many of Evelyn's postings in the past, and often agreeing
with them, I can only guess that she simply doesn't know much about
gay people, nor the kind of things which may be important when choosing
a roommate of any persuasion.
Would she take exception to:
"Vegetarian M seeks same to share apartment..."
or maybe
"Non-smoker seeks same, M or F to share house..."
or maybe
"Roommate wanted, no pets."
and even
"Christians sought to share communal fellowship..."
Of course not. It is no less appropriate to identify oneself as gay
or specify that one is looking for a gay roommate. This prescreens
the audience. Homophobic straight people or those who are simply
uncomfortable need not apply. As for the potential for harassment,
it depends on the enviroment--I am sure Robert has taken that into
account (and in any event, at least in the New England high-tech
professional corridor, it doesn't appear to be an issue.) Her attempt
to demean the desire to to live with compatible people, with her neo-
liberal "why should it be an issue at all?" is a slap in the face to
gay people.
When the new age arrives, I'm sure it won't be a big issue anymore
to have to state one's sexual preference in a roommate ad. But until
that comes, the fact is that many straight people are uncomfortable
dealing with gay people, especially in a roommate situation. It is
a waste of both parties' time to let an inquiry get as far as a phone
call. Better to let everyone know up-front.
--
/Steve Dyer
{decvax,linus,ima,ihnp4}!bbncca!sdyer
sdyer@bbnccv.ARPAtim@cmu-cs-k.ARPA (Tim Maroney) (03/27/85)
Yes, I certainly would object to an ad such as Steve proposed asking for Christians (or members of any other religion) exclusively to share a dwelling. In fact, I would make sure the state attorney general knew about the advertisement, since it is illegal to discriminate on religious grounds in housing. If statutes against sex-preference discrimination become the norm, as I think most gays would like, ads asking for gays exclusively would become as illegal as ads asking for heterosexuals exclusively. And that is as it should be. Being a persecuted minority does NOT confer the right to discriminate, no matter how much more convenient it makes your life. "Liberation" is not all a bed of roses. You have to live by the same standards you make the oppressors live by. You may not like it in some cases, but it is the price that has to be paid to end discrimination. Otherwise you just have a new double standard. -=- Tim Maroney, Carnegie-Mellon University, Networking ARPA: Tim.Maroney@CMU-CS-K uucp: seismo!cmu-cs-k!tim CompuServe: 74176,1360 audio: shout "Hey, Tim!"
sdyer@bbnccv.UUCP (Steve Dyer) (03/29/85)
> Yes, I certainly would object to an ad such as Steve proposed asking for > Christians (or members of any other religion) exclusively to share a > dwelling. In fact, I would make sure the state attorney general knew about > the advertisement, since it is illegal to discriminate on religious grounds > in housing. > > "Liberation" is not all a bed of roses. You have to live by the same > standards you make the oppressors live by. You may not like it in some > cases, but it is the price that has to be paid to end discrimination. > Otherwise you just have a new double standard. Sounds like my response to Evelyn pressed one of Tim's pre-programmed buttons. I would save the tirade against religion for another more appropriate newsgroup. What *IS* true in the context of this discussion is that a personal characteristic such as sexual orientation is as legitimate a discriminant when making a housing choice as vegetarianism, gender, smoking, keeping kosher, liking loud music, or even (gasp) religion, if one cared enough about it. There is nothing illegal about an individual making private decisions about whom they wish to live with or associate with. Some of those might be repugnant to some (discrimination based on race or religion), others morally neutral. I am thankful, however, that we don't have the government that Tim thinks we have, where individual "right thinking" and "right behavior" are legislated. To belabor the obvious, I am not addressing discrimination by public and private *institutions*, nor the moral illegitimacy of such discrimination. More than anything else, I am appalled at the more general controversy (raised entirely by straights here) who would claim that explicitly seeking a gay roommate is not only a non-issue but actually morally wrong! They of course would not think twice about using any of the issues mentioned above as criteria in choosing friends, roommates and lovers. -- /Steve Dyer {decvax,linus,ima,ihnp4}!bbncca!sdyer sdyer@bbnccv.ARPA
tim@cmu-cs-k.ARPA (Tim Maroney) (03/30/85)
Quotes from sdyer@bbnccv.UUCP (Steve Dyer) Fri Mar 29 02:24:35 1985: > > Yes, I certainly would object to an ad such as Steve proposed asking for > > Christians (or members of any other religion) exclusively to share a > > dwelling. In fact, I would make sure the state attorney general knew > > about the advertisement, since it is illegal to discriminate on religious > > grounds in housing. > > > > "Liberation" is not all a bed of roses. You have to live by the same > > standards you make the oppressors live by. You may not like it in some > > cases, but it is the price that has to be paid to end discrimination. > > Otherwise you just have a new double standard. > > Sounds like my response to Evelyn pressed one of Tim's pre-programmed > buttons. I would save the tirade against religion for another more > appropriate newsgroup. What the Hell are you talking about? I am deeply religious; I am even the moderator of a religious mailing list. (And unlike your religion, mine embraces homosexuality and bisexuality.) What "tirade" are you referring to? Protesting discrimination based on religion is a "tirade against religion"? Obviously my name has pressed one of the "pre-programmed buttons" in Steve's tiny little mind. My advice, Steve: First pull your head out of your ass. Then (maybe) you'll be able to pull the beam out of your eye. > What *IS* true in the context of this discussion > is that a personal characteristic such as sexual orientation is as > legitimate a discriminant when making a housing choice as vegetarianism, > gender, smoking, keeping kosher, liking loud music, or even (gasp) religion, > if one cared enough about it. Since those are not equally legitimate, the sentence is meaningless. Let me spell it out for you: If someone said "White roomates only need apply", or "Bisexual roommates only need apply", or "Thelemite roommates only need apply", I would consider that person a fool and a bigot, despite the fact that I am a white bisexual Thelemite. Anyone who gets offended by a roommate's religion, color, or sexual preference is an asshole, and has no moral right to discriminate based on his bigotry. > There is nothing illegal about an individual making private decisions > about whom they wish to live with or associate with. Some of those > might be repugnant to some (discrimination based on race or religion), > others morally neutral. I am thankful, however, that we don't have > the government that Tim thinks we have, where individual "right > thinking" and "right behavior" are legislated. More meaningless yow-yow arguments. You are probably right concerning the legalities involved, unfortunately. But if asking the government to forbid prejudicial discrimination by individuals is 1984-style, then I suppose Paul loved homosexuals, the Russians haven't lost anyone in their space program, and little puppies have wombats for their mothers. Have you been talking with Frank Adrian lately, by any chance? > To belabor the > obvious, I am not addressing discrimination by public and private > *institutions*, nor the moral illegitimacy of such discrimination. Why do you feel that something which is morally wrong for an institution can be morally right for an individual? To me that is prima facie absurd. > More than anything else, I am appalled at the more general controversy > (raised entirely by straights here) who would claim that explicitly > seeking a gay roommate is not only a non-issue but actually morally > wrong! They of course would not think twice about using any of the > issues mentioned above as criteria in choosing friends, roommates > and lovers. I see. Now I'm straight. Thanks for reversing my sexuality as well as my religion, Steve. What IS your problem? As I have said, you are entirely wrong about my own willingness to make decisions on the basis of bigotry and prejudice. Not only am I unwilling to do so, I have no desire at all to do so. Nor do I write knee-jerk replies to messages based solely on my prejudices about the writer.... -=- Tim Maroney, Carnegie-Mellon University, Networking ARPA: Tim.Maroney@CMU-CS-K uucp: seismo!cmu-cs-k!tim CompuServe: 74176,1360 audio: shout "Hey, Tim!"
roy@phri.UUCP (Roy Smith) (04/01/85)
> Yes, I certainly would object to an ad such as Steve proposed asking for > Christians (or members of any other religion) exclusively to share a > dwelling. In fact, I would make sure the state attorney general knew about > the advertisement, since it is illegal to discriminate on religious grounds > in housing. I'm no lawer, but I was always under the impression that it is illegal for a >>landlord<< to discriminate against prospective >>tenants<< based on whatever, not for people to choose roommate they will be comfortable living with. Call me a homophobe if you want, but I think I would feel uncomfortable living with a gay roommate. I think I would also feel awkward sharing an apartment with a woman that I was not romanticly involved with. Presumably a gay would feel uncomfortable living with me. Why shouldn't these feelings be put into an advertisement and save everybody having to discover them later? -- cmcl2!rocky2!cubsvax -\ vax135!timeinc -> !phri!roy (Roy Smith, System Administrator) allegra -/ The opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect the views of the Public Health Research Institute.