Law School Discussion

Gay Affirmative Action?

!!

  • ****
  • 1430
    • View Profile
Re: Gay Affirmative Action?
« Reply #20 on: October 30, 2005, 08:39:07 PM »
My question is, if you suck 1000 c*cks and build one bridge, are you a bridge builder?

Ah, but did you suck cock on the bridge?  ???

thescreed

Re: Gay Affirmative Action?
« Reply #21 on: October 30, 2005, 08:52:19 PM »
The whole "lie about it if you want" thing kind of ticked me off

I just said that because it fills me with pleasure knowing that some day, some a-hole is going to get what's coming to him for lying about being gay.  Lies like this have a way of... being discovered.

And also... I am gay. ;)

Would it be a lie to say you're gay if you're married with children but you like to whack off to gay porn? Not exclusively, but, you know, not infrequently. How many points would that be worth?

!!

  • ****
  • 1430
    • View Profile
Re: Gay Affirmative Action?
« Reply #22 on: October 30, 2005, 08:54:55 PM »
How many points would that be worth?

1.7

verbal

  • ****
  • 1951
    • AOL Instant Messenger - verbaltrinity
    • View Profile
Re: Gay Affirmative Action?
« Reply #23 on: October 30, 2005, 09:03:38 PM »
well now i want to write all my law schools and tell them im gay. ill just have to let them no not to tell the army as they might not be as happy about it.

SkullTatt

Re: Gay Affirmative Action?
« Reply #24 on: October 30, 2005, 09:11:42 PM »
I think there should be different degrees of affirmative action based on the following checkboxes:

X - My Theta Chi frat bros are really hot, but I only have gay sex when drunk
X - I have sex w/guys but no making out
X - Totally gay, I am "The Sixth Queer Eye Guy"
X - Kelly Clarkson fan (male)
X - Bridge builder with a VERY big toolbox, if you know what I mean!

The Dread Pirate Roberts

  • ****
  • 4399
  • Back to my non-secret secret identity...
    • View Profile
Re: Gay Affirmative Action?
« Reply #25 on: October 31, 2005, 08:00:07 AM »
I hate to say it because it's politically inconvenient, but I have to say that there does seem to me to be more fluidity about sexual orientation, especially for women, than many people claim.

But the thing is, even if change occurs over a lifetime, it doesn't mean that those changes are voluntary, and it doesn't mean that the person wasn't, say, genuinely bisexual for a period and now genuinely homosexual. without in any way wanting those changes to occur.

I hate it when people say racism is bad and homophobia is ok because you can change who you have sex with but you can't change your skin color.  Every time I hear that, I wonder if they think that if it were possible to change skin color, all non white people should choose to do so.

Re: Gay Affirmative Action?
« Reply #26 on: October 31, 2005, 08:25:16 AM »
I hate to say it because it's politically inconvenient, but I have to say that there does seem to me to be more fluidity about sexual orientation, especially for women, than many people claim.

But the thing is, even if change occurs over a lifetime, it doesn't mean that those changes are voluntary, and it doesn't mean that the person wasn't, say, genuinely bisexual for a period and now genuinely homosexual. without in any way wanting those changes to occur.

I hate it when people say racism is bad and homophobia is ok because you can change who you have sex with but you can't change your skin color.  Every time I hear that, I wonder if they think that if it were possible to change skin color, all non white people should choose to do so.

Sugersh,  did you see that article in the NY Times a while about research studying pheromones and bisexuals.  Found that for bisexual men, they were only "turned on" (I forget how that was measured--but would like to know!) by either men or women, not both.  Bisexual women, however, did respond to both.  It was really interesting, and of course there are problems with the methodology--but it supports the idea (for men at least) that you are either gay, straight or lying.

The Dread Pirate Roberts

  • ****
  • 4399
  • Back to my non-secret secret identity...
    • View Profile
Re: Gay Affirmative Action?
« Reply #27 on: October 31, 2005, 08:35:57 AM »
Sugersh,  did you see that article in the NY Times a while about research studying pheromones and bisexuals.  Found that for bisexual men, they were only "turned on" (I forget how that was measured--but would like to know!) by either men or women, not both.  Bisexual women, however, did respond to both.  It was really interesting, and of course there are problems with the methodology--but it supports the idea (for men at least) that you are either gay, straight or lying.

I did see that, and it was certainly interesting, but I tend to think that it is a bit oversimplified.  For one thing, I think I recall that it was all done in a short time period, so changes in orientation over time couldn't be captured if they exist.  For another, reactions porn and to actual sex can be different in a lot of ways.  And I also tend to think that "lying" is a strong word; if someone is very romantically or aesthetically attracted to a particular gender expression, but is only physically attracted to another gender expression, I don't think it would be right to say they were "lying" in saying they're bisexual.

!!

  • ****
  • 1430
    • View Profile
Re: Gay Affirmative Action?
« Reply #28 on: October 31, 2005, 08:37:12 AM »
Botanist and Sugersh, would either of you care to offer your opinion on the topic of this thread?  We seem to be getting off track.  See the OP.

The Dread Pirate Roberts

  • ****
  • 4399
  • Back to my non-secret secret identity...
    • View Profile
Re: Gay Affirmative Action?
« Reply #29 on: October 31, 2005, 08:47:30 AM »
Botanist and Sugersh, would either of you care to offer your opinion on the topic of this thread?  We seem to be getting off track.  See the OP.

I've give my opinion on this about thirty times in various threads.  Sorry about going off topic, I was just going with the flow of the conversation.

But for the record, I would imagine that law schools want to have a few queers in each class, but not enough that there's a significant advantage, because there are plenty of queers applying.  People can lie if they want, and I doubt there will be negative consequences, but there could be, and there's enough homophobia out there that not enough people would lie about it to make a difference.

And Penn's fee waiver is probably more because they want more applicants and know that us queers are easily flattered by specific attention (really I speak only for myself here), and less because they actually want more queers.