More equal than real marriage.
To be fair, the rule (I’m sure) is that there are no “co-ed” rooms. Just like in college where I couldn’t have a female roommate regardless of marital status, Olympic athletes have to room with someone of the same sex. Clearly people in homosexual relationships are advantaged by this, but would you require co-ed rooms on a college campus by the same principle?
I don’t think it’s an either/or. When I was in college at a moderately conservative Catholic university, dorms were not co-ed. However, there were a few married couples in attendance at school, and they were accommodated with housing while the majority of us, being unmarried, were segregated by gender.
Oh sure, and I think these accommodations are a good idea, I’m just not sure a failure to make these accommodations classifies as “discrimination” so much as an “oversight.”
Yeah, I agree. It’s probably just a matter of oversight. Also, are these gay couples married? If not, then the Olympic committee is not privileging gay “marriage” over real marriage.
I think to make it fair, gay athletes should be required to room with *a gay person of the opposite gender*.
Somehow, I doubt they ask beforehand whether you are gay or straight just to make sure they give you an incompatible roommate. That would be awfully intrusive and discriminatory in and of itself. (Not in that they would be discriminating against one group more than another, but in that they would deliberately be discriminating between orientations to set up incompatible pairs.) Men’s and women’s housing has worked for ages to keep the heterosexual majority from putting their hands all over each other (or at least made them go to some effort to do so). If gays realize a bit of an inadvertent advantage from it, I don’t think that’s so unfair that we should go around deliberately taking orientation into account when assigning roommates.
Oh, poor gays. If the intent is to *stop temptation*- shouldn’t the temptation be stopped equally?
I don’t suspect the olympic officials care one way or another about “temptation” or what grown people do with/to each other. The concerns are quite probably centered mostly on security and liability and avoiding disruption of the routines of athletes who are facing the toughest challenge of their lives. I don’t see the problem. I mean, I’m as dedicated a pervert as any man alive, but I can pull it together long enough to focus on other things for a few days or weeks when something like the Olympics is on the line. Nobody is forced to stay in the athletes village, and I can’t imagine that any world-class athletes would have any difficulty securing other arrangements. These teams have many wealthy patrons, for starters.
Even from that standpoint Kenneth- I would think that the possibility of a homosexual rape would be as big of a potential liability as that of a heterosexual one.
I wasn’t even thinking primarily in terms of rape. I mean that’s an element of safety in any housing situation, but based on the relatively short time and the obvious other distractions, I don’t suspect it poses the same risks here as it does, say, in prison or military situations.
Mostly what I’m driving at is that I don’t think this Australian couple’s view of the situation is really supported by facts as of yet. I don’t think the Olympic officials are really trying to favor gays or hetero folk or anyone. I think it just comes down to the fact that conjugal arrangements are just very low on their list of priorities given the other pressures of running the events. I think the object of the housing is to keep access mostly to athletes and their support teams. There are probably very few, if any, other couples who are in the same situation, gay or straight.
I’ve certainly seen nothing in the rather weak reporting of the core story that shows that there are “tons” of gay couples or that they have any special advantage in housing. The fact that they can stay under the same roof does not necessarily translate to the sorts of privacy that most couples would want. It would be interesting if some news agency fleshed out this story, so to speak. What ARE the rules/accommodations? Do athletes have any privacy for intimacy or even any time or energy? Is there some unwritten traditions about putting a “coat hanger on a door” if someone wants some time alone in a shared room? I don’t know. I do know that when any group – hetero folks, Christians, or gays, start calling “discrimination” at every turn, it desensitizes people to the real problems. It’s like “crying wolf” once too often.
Ted, you really ought to say “poor me.” That kind of intrusive power would eventually, inevitably be used against somebody with whom you have greater sympathy (similar argument as with the HHS mandate). Deadstop’s objection is a fair one.
Indeed, many colleges now offer married student housing. I can see the possibility of the argument that there might not be enough space… However, if they are being boarded in pairs, I have to wonder what it matters if a married couple boards together rather than two men or two women.
There may be issues as mundane as shower and bathroom arrangements. I always envisioned these athlete housing complexes as more barracks-style than hotel. If they have common showers and bathrooms, that’s going to be a bit awkward for mixed-gender couples and other housemates. Maybe they should give more consideration to couples arrangements, but I would think the priority is and should be the needs of the games. I can’t imagine competitors have much time outside of training, therapy, rest and strategy with their coaches etc.
…no more awkward than it is for same sex couples in relation to other housemates.
Sounds to me like it is a bit like a suite-style dormitory: shared bathrooms, but only among a few people.
Hmm, true, if it’s two-person rooms, it shouldn’t matter. I was thinking maybe they were four-to-a-room, and nobody wanted to put a married couple in with other roomies, and couldn’t afford to give them a room to themselves. (Presumably, they don’t necessary want the gay couples getting up to naughtiness in a room with others, either, but by accident the same-sex accommodations allow for that more easily.) I think it’s dangerous to talk about this as deliberate discrimination, as it makes it sound like a “picking on the poor heterosexuals” complaint when we already have considerable built-in advantages in society. There are situations in which a “reverse discrimination” claim can be very accurate and effective, but this doesn’t come across as one of those.
The charge of anti-hetero discrimination is based on one guy’s assertion that there are “tons” of gay couples in olympic competition. Who are they? Can he name even one same sex couple who will be competing together in these games? If so, have any of them been given a private room as couples? Is he saying that there is a disproportionate number of gays and lesbians generally and that segregated housing thus offers them “hook up” opportunities not afforded him? Do either hetero or gay athletes come to this level of sport for the purpose of cruising for each other? Do they seriously have time for that? There may be a legitimate discrimination complaint, but Mark’s grousing falls far short of establishing any facts for such a complaint.
For something different, a change, Google First Scandal. It’s relevant. And it really is all about sex.
This is England, a country with a venerable state sponsored church! Why, it’s impossible to imagine them allowing such things there. It would never happen among the laity or the clergy….
My understanding is that there are two bathrooms available, and they’re trying to split the arrangements equitably so two people aren’t hogging one bathroom and five people trying to share the other. If they could put the husband with the men, then the remaining women could be divided into two groups of three. My guess is they have an interest in seeing that competitors are able to get their business done quickly and get where they need to go. It does make the couple look a bit like primadonnas.
Man, imagine what bi-sexual people have!
Same sex room? no problem.
Co-ed room? Even better!
I hope it wasn’t a reason for mocking homosexual people like christians like to do, I know too many gays who killed themselves out of despair which religios families and societies gave them =/