Separate But Equal

Segregation is still in our society.

Published on February 26, 2004 By messybuu In Current Events

The recent discussions about whether or not homosexuals should be allowed to marry have sparked many to claim that refusing homosexuals the right to wed is equivalent to the segregation laws that took place in the South. After some thought, I realized that segregation still does exist in our world. There are many ways in which segregation still strangles our society, and if we truly want to end this Jim Crow mentality, then we should abolish this behavior that "separate but equal" is all right.

Here are just a few samples of segregation:

Separate bathrooms for males and females.

Separate locker rooms for males and females.

Separate showers for males and females.

Separate departments for males and females in clothing stores.

These are some of the most blatant acts of "separate but equal" facilities to drive a wedge between the genders. I see no difference between segregating bathrooms, locker rooms, gyms, etc. by genders and segregating them by race. It's not as if males and females are unable to use the same bathrooms, clothes, and showers, as they often do in our homes.

So what's the deal? Why do we continue to uphold the will of the KKK and support segregation?

Comments (Page 2)

messybuu

on Feb 27, 2004

I read over the responses to this post and I'm assuming you took it all as a joke. I thought it was serious when I read it but now I'm not so sure. Saying that men and women are still segregated is a pretty ridiculous argument, especially since it has nothing to do with gay marriage. I mean, they don't allow 90-year-olds in kindergarten and they don't allow 5-year-olds in nursing homes. Is that segregation?

Most 90-year-olds have already finished kindergarten and what kind of nursing home wouldn't allow a five-year-old to see his or her grandparents?

I think separate bathrooms is pretty much because some people would rather not think that some man or woman could just stick their head under a door and see you peeing. Same with showers, dressing rooms, and any other place where a person has an expectation of privacy. But going back to the whole segregation thing, next you'll be saying that churches are segregated because they are divided by religion or that hospitals are segregated because they separate people by severity of injuries. I know, you were just making a joke. I'm just saying some people, myself included, might not realize you're immediately joking. But reading over it now, I say it's pretty funny.

I agree. That's why I think locker rooms, showers, and bathrooms should also be segregated by sexuality. I don't want homosexuals peeping in on me. No reason to disagree, since I'm sure some men and some women would rather not think that some homosexuals could stick their head under the door and see them peeing.

Ben Belden

on Feb 27, 2004

Well, I hate to say this seeing as how I am in favor of gay marriage and opposed to discrimination based on sexuality, race, etc., but you do make a good point about segregation of areas of public exposing. If it was simply a question of privacy so that people's peace of mind was assured then I would not be opposed to it. However, at the same time, as long as no one acts out or does anything unusual, what's wrong with the current system? I mean, a heterosexual person could just as easily peep on someone, the only difference being that they wouldn't enjoy it. Should they have seperate bathrooms for straight male perverts, straight male non-perverts, gay male perverts, gay male non-perverts, straight female perverts, straight female non-perverts, gay female perverts, and gay female non-perverts? I think having pervert and non-pervert rooms is a much better solution than hetero and homosexual rooms.

And the whole 90-year-old and 5-year-old thing was a joke. I was just saying, if you're going to discriminate on something as meaningless as sexuality, why not do it with age as well?

Lunaticus Minimus

on Feb 28, 2004

Who's going to wear the Scarlet Letter of Gayness so you know who to let into a bathroom, lockeroom, etc.,.. Are you going to hire someone with Gaydar to sit at the door and say "Hey, you can't go in there, your bathroom is down the hall to the right" ?

Sure, it makes sense, but it becomes crazily unfeasable at that point. :op

BulbousHead

on Feb 28, 2004

There's a problem with contending that differences between men and women fall under the category of "separate but equal."

MEN AND WOMEN ARE NOT EQUAL.

Men urinate standing up; women do not. Different facilities are needed. Men and women have different genital organs. Different levels of privacy are desired (though not by me...). Men wear different clothes from those that women wear. Different sections of the store are allotted.

messybuu

on Feb 29, 2004

Men urinate standing up; women do not. Different facilities are needed. Men and women have different genital organs. Different levels of privacy are desired (though not by me...). Men wear different clothes from those that women wear. Different sections of the store are allotted.

In my home, both men and women use toilets. Different levels of privacy might be desired, but why should the majority's desire matter? I'll concede that department stores have decent reasons as to why they separate departments by genders.

BulbousHead

on Feb 29, 2004

why should the majority's desire matter?

It should be considered when designing your restrooms just as a matter of courtesy and convenience, but I don't think it should be mandated by law.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!