This upsets me

[none2_none2]

I genuinely apologize for not being clear. I should have used the phrase "men are supposedly driven by their sex drive" which is a more clear statement of my feelings.

Thanks for clarifying. Unlike what I Safe_bet was first alluding to from what I wrote, I wasn't trying to make an argument for argument's sake. The words
"supposedly" and "supposed" have the same root, but the subtle difference between the two change the meaning enough that I needed to mention it.

That being said, I still think you need to put the whole argument in the broader context. Yes, I have an issue with someone getting to turn down a roommate because that person has a different sexuality if the same individual would not be allowed to turn down a roommate for other conditions.

However, on the gender segregation one cannot deny some similarity. If the reason behind the gender segregation is for things such as: 1) to help minimize the risk of pregnancy, or 2) the fact that the overwhelming numbers of unwanted sexual overtures are from men on women, or 3) parents and/or alumni would stop supporting the school; then for all such reasons one could make a distinction between examples of sexuality or of gender. However, if it is mainly based on the perception of sexual tensions, then it is similar enough to the gay/str8 original situation, that it cannot be ignored.

There are other areas of gay liberation where conservatives do "bate" the argument with conditions that have no merit if you are careful how you argue the issue. For instance, in the liberal town near me (where I lived until last years move to the country), it is very typical to have gay rights stories in the paper. The blogs following the articles have very strong supporters as well as detractors. One of the big topics that comes up time and a gain is "gay marriage. One particular "bater" always brings up that gay people are hypocrites because we also don't as a group fight for the rights of polygamists, incestous couples, zoos, etc. Supportive posters tend to fall into the trap of arguing that it is about fighting for the right to marry who you want because of love. Then he could catch them with their own words and say that these other sexualities that also want the same thing.

My political argument for gay marriage was never based on the emotional appeal of love, but rather sexism. If marriage legally had codified what the male husband must do, and what the wife must do, and any variation meant a violation of the marriage contract; then I could live with being excluded. What I means is if the rules required a husband to provide, to sire kids only with his wife, to do X, Y, Z, etc until death do us part. where as the wife must have children sired only by the husband during all her fertile years, stay at home, raise the children, and do x,y,x until death do they part. Then one could argue that such a legal definition could present problems for GLBT's. Similarly couples past reproductive years, remarried couples, couples who cannot have children or do not wish to, polygamous couples, swinger couples also might not be able to get married by such a functional definition of the roles and responsibilities of the husband & wife. We live in a culture where both the laws and the society in general don't dictate what the gender roles should be as much anymore nor whether children are mandatory. Sure there is social pressures to have children, etc, but couples who cannot or will not have children can still get married. If the state sees fit not to regulate to that level of detail/control, then the state has no compelling to deny gay marriages. (Getting too sleepy to continue, so I'll have to review this tomorrow.)