Straight med students and their allies

[Dr. Josh]

Hi everyone! I hope this thread provides a safe space for discussion of straight related issues in medical school and medicine. We need a space that can be just ours as well.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Flopotomist]

I had a few straight friends once. I don't mind straight people as long as they don't flaunt their sexuality. I also don't get straight people that run around playing "victim" because they aren't in a recognized minority status. They should just chill out and be themselves.

 

[odrade1]

I think it's great that there is finally a place that straight people can get together and just be themselves.... As you know, there really aren't any other forums on SDN where you can find plenty of straight people to relate to. This is especially important, considering how few straight people there are in medicine, and how difficult a time they have it in our profession.

 

[liveandlearn]

this thread only further validates the probelms homosexuals face and our need for a specific "safe" thread.

 

[Ypo.]

Hi everyone! I hope this thread provides a safe space for discussion of straight related issues in medical school and medicine. We need a space that can be just ours as well.

What are some straight-related issues in medicine? I'm afraid this post won't go very far if we can't think of any...

 

[MoosePilot]

this thread only further validates the probelms homosexuals face and our need for a specific "safe" thread.

Does it? I haven't noticed anyone honoring our "safe" thread.

You have to admit that I complied with everyone's requests pretty darn rapidly. Why is a parallel thread a problem, even if it's unneeded as you all are trying to point out?

 

[rockit]

What are some straight-related issues in medicine? I'm afraid this post won't go very far if we can't think of any...

decline in quality of nurses???

 

[MoosePilot]

What are some straight-related issues in medicine? I'm afraid this post won't go very far if we can't think of any...

Having kids in med school/residency? Is it practical? Scheduling weddings during a busy education/career. Dating/finding a significant other while busy and without accidentally ending up with someone motivated by your perceived status/finances?

There are a lot of issues, but I would agree with the dissenters that these are open for discussion anywhere on SDN without backlash. Straight people don't need a thread, but I support equal treatment for all, so if someone wants a thread for GLBT issues that people won't preempt, I'd argue that this thread should be left alone. If nothing else, it will fizzle and make the point itself that it's useless.

 

[IAMS]

decline in quality of nurses???

I'm sorry, are you talking quality as a profession, or exhibition?

 

[liveandlearn]

Does it? I haven't noticed anyone honoring our "safe" thread.

You have to admit that I complied with everyone's requests pretty darn rapidly. Why is a parallel thread a problem, even if it's unneeded as you all are trying to point out?

Because it was created in spite. Sometimes its not the action, but the motivation for the action. What aspect of medicine is NOT straight related? I feel sorry for you guys. I wont post in this thread again, you can have it. Just like the rest of the world. Go look at what the GLBT thread has been reduced to.

 

[MoosePilot]

Because it was created in spite. Sometimes its not the action, but the motivation for the action. What aspect of medicine is NOT straight related? I feel sorry for you guys. I wont post in this thread again, you can have it. Just like the rest of the world. Go look at what the GLBT thread has been reduced to.

I did see that and I regret it, because ultimately, I think if it's important to someone for their thread to stay strictly on topic, then it should.

However, since you've already left that thread, for your personal growth I think you should consider why some of the regulars in the thread have started an open dialogue with people who basically drove you out. Why can those regulars stand it and you have a tougher time?

Being part of a minority that many disapprove of is tough. Maybe you gotta be tough to get along.

Edit: I don't think this was started necessarily in spite. Nothing spiteful was said. I think it was started out of defiance, which is a different thing. You can do it, we can do it. I don't think that's nasty enough to qualify as spite.

 

[Ypo.]

Live and learn-I'm sorry if you feel your thread has been ruined. That was not my intention-the thread said "GLBT and their allies"-and since I voted in support of gay-marriage I thought I might be able to post there. But you seem to be kind of intolerant to people asking questions to become more informed (and thus better allies) so I can't really feel sorry for you if you are 'that' defensive and exclusionary.

 

[DropkickMurphy]

I'm sorry, are you talking quality as a profession, or exhibition?

I think he's lamenting the fact that they aren't the eye candy they should be.

 

[MoosePilot]

I oppose gay marriage.

Why? Why is it my business? I'd normally bill myself as somewhat of a libertarian, so why am I getting involved in something that doesn't affect me?

Well, it's many tiered.

1. Marriage started out as a religious sacrament. Marriage has been around longer than the United States, longer than our current social climate, and longer than the current rate of divorce. This argument has led me to understand that the first mistake was allowing government to concern itself in what is, essentially, a religious matter. I don't feel same sex couples can marry, because I don't think God will recognize them as married. "What God has joined...". The government passing laws saying that suddenly they can marry will interfere with that. Should I become a small business owner, or am in some way regulated by the government, I will be forced to "recognize" a marriage which I believe is sacrilegious. Let's say I'm running a small private practice and I hire a very professional young woman. We have a small picnic to welcome her to the office and she shows up with her "wife". Great. If the law goes the way proponents want it to, now I've got a "married couple" that I don't really want my children exposed to. Outstanding.

2. I'm not totally against civil unions, because it's a government thing and should be decided democratically. However, I think the government needs to research the cost of it. Suddenly, a whole new class of people will be entitled to benefits that weren't previously. Insurance costs, for instance, need to be examined.

3. Other benefits involve things I'm not comfortable with. I think homosexuality is morally wrong. Heck, I do a lot that's morally wrong, so why is that a problem? I recognize that some aspects of my lifestyle are a problem. When I drink too much, I don't flaunt it. When I'm having sex, I don't invite others to watch. But homosexuality is becoming the central focus and very public, now that it's growing to be socially acceptable. Not only is it ok to be obviously homosexual, now the relationship is going to be a basis for adopting children? I think that would be like alcoholism becoming a plus for adopting kids. As long as you've got your drinking buddy with you, you're good to go! I'm sure this is the paragraph people are going to pick apart, which is fine, but whatever. If adoptions normally go to couples and the whole reason you're a couple is because you're gay together, then I don't see that as right or acceptable.

Anyway, these are my reasons.

 

[Flopotomist]

I oppose gay marriage.

Why? Why is it my business? I'd normally bill myself as somewhat of a libertarian, so why am I getting involved in something that doesn't affect me?

Well, it's many tiered.

1. Marriage started out as a religious sacrament. Marriage has been around longer than the United States, longer than our current social climate, and longer than the current rate of divorce. This argument has led me to understand that the first mistake was allowing government to concern itself in what is, essentially, a religious matter. I don't feel same sex couples can marry, because I don't think God will recognize them as married. "What God has joined...". The government passing laws saying that suddenly they can marry will interfere with that. Should I become a small business owner, or am in some way regulated by the government, I will be forced to "recognize" a marriage which I believe is sacrilegious. Let's say I'm running a small private practice and I hire a very professional young woman. We have a small picnic to welcome her to the office and she shows up with her "wife". Great. If the law goes the way proponents want it to, now I've got a "married couple" that I don't really want my children exposed to. Outstanding.

2. I'm not totally against civil unions, because it's a government thing and should be decided democratically. However, I think the government needs to research the cost of it. Suddenly, a whole new class of people will be entitled to benefits that weren't previously. Insurance costs, for instance, need to be examined.

3. Other benefits involve things I'm not comfortable with. I think homosexuality is morally wrong. Heck, I do a lot that's morally wrong, so why is that a problem? I recognize that some aspects of my lifestyle are a problem. When I drink too much, I don't flaunt it. When I'm having sex, I don't invite others to watch. But homosexuality is becoming the central focus and very public, now that it's growing to be socially acceptable. Not only is it ok to be obviously homosexual, now the relationship is going to be a basis for adopting children? I think that would be like alcoholism becoming a plus for adopting kids. As long as you've got your drinking buddy with you, you're good to go! I'm sure this is the paragraph people are going to pick apart, which is fine, but whatever. If adoptions normally go to couples and the whole reason you're a couple is because you're gay together, then I don't see that as right or acceptable.

Anyway, these are my reasons.

Im opposed to plaid with stripes.. but what relevence does that have to the thread on straight issues?

 

[MoosePilot]

Im opposed to plaid with stripes.. but what relevence does that have to the thread on straight issues?

Someone asked via PM to post it here, since it wasn't helpful over at the GLBT thread. I thought it was relevant, because most of the opposition to gay marriage is probably from heterosexual people, thus the opposition is a straight issue.

 

[Ypo.]

I oppose gay marriage.

Why? Why is it my business? I'd normally bill myself as somewhat of a libertarian, so why am I getting involved in something that doesn't affect me?

Well, it's many tiered.

1. Marriage started out as a religious sacrament. Marriage has been around longer than the United States, longer than our current social climate, and longer than the current rate of divorce. This argument has led me to understand that the first mistake was allowing government to concern itself in what is, essentially, a religious matter. I don't feel same sex couples can marry, because I don't think God will recognize them as married. "What God has joined...". The government passing laws saying that suddenly they can marry will interfere with that. Should I become a small business owner, or am in some way regulated by the government, I will be forced to "recognize" a marriage which I believe is sacrilegious. Let's say I'm running a small private practice and I hire a very professional young woman. We have a small picnic to welcome her to the office and she shows up with her "wife". Great. If the law goes the way proponents want it to, now I've got a "married couple" that I don't really want my children exposed to. Outstanding.

2. I'm not totally against civil unions, because it's a government thing and should be decided democratically. However, I think the government needs to research the cost of it. Suddenly, a whole new class of people will be entitled to benefits that weren't previously. Insurance costs, for instance, need to be examined.

3. Other benefits involve things I'm not comfortable with. I think homosexuality is morally wrong. Heck, I do a lot that's morally wrong, so why is that a problem? I recognize that some aspects of my lifestyle are a problem. When I drink too much, I don't flaunt it. When I'm having sex, I don't invite others to watch. But homosexuality is becoming the central focus and very public, now that it's growing to be socially acceptable. Not only is it ok to be obviously homosexual, now the relationship is going to be a basis for adopting children? I think that would be like alcoholism becoming a plus for adopting kids. As long as you've got your drinking buddy with you, you're good to go! I'm sure this is the paragraph people are going to pick apart, which is fine, but whatever. If adoptions normally go to couples and the whole reason you're a couple is because you're gay together, then I don't see that as right or acceptable.

Anyway, these are my reasons.

Thanks for posting this. I'm curious-do you think this is the way a lot of people feel who are opposed to gay marriage?

Also-since you feel that government should not be involved in the marriage issue -does this also mean that you are against straight married people getting benefits from the government?

I think the government has no right telling people who can and can't get married-and I agree with you that there have to be some limits on how the money is spent. I for one have no problem with polygamy-(a little known fact is that the government didn't outlaw it until Mormons started to practice it) but I don't think that wife 2,3, and 4 should all be entitled to health insurance under their husband...because that would be too complicated and draining on the system.

But I do not think that marriage is completely a religious issue. I mean, don't other cultures have marriage that is not religious, but more cultural? Perhaps then you would not call it 'marriage' but I have to say that a lot of nonreligious heterosexual people join in unions they consider marriage. Perhaps historically in Chrisitianity it is a religous matter, but I think that marriage has become something else for a lot of straight people.

I also don't understand the analogy of gay parenting and alcoholic parenting. Is a gay couple with children any more flamboyant about their sex life than a straight couple? Probably not. Also, alcholism in parents has been shown to be detrimental to children's lives, so I am unable to draw an analogy between the two. On the other hand, any two focked up heterosexual idiots can have kids and ruin their lives (and often do). I can't really see why two responsible stable gay parents can't do a better job of raising adopted children. And I would go so far as to say that this would be a much more supportive and nurturing environment than your average broken home.

 

[odrade1]

I oppose gay marriage.

Why? Why is it my business? I'd normally bill myself as somewhat of a libertarian, so why am I getting involved in something that doesn't affect me?

Well, it's many tiered.

1. Marriage started out as a religious sacrament. Marriage has been around longer than the United States, longer than our current social climate, and longer than the current rate of divorce. This argument has led me to understand that the first mistake was allowing government to concern itself in what is, essentially, a religious matter. I don't feel same sex couples can marry, because I don't think God will recognize them as married. "What God has joined...". The government passing laws saying that suddenly they can marry will interfere with that.

Your point #1 is a great example of why it is important to recognize as separate the religious function of a marriage and the secular function of a marriage. You can have one without the other. If I get married through my priest and I mis-filed my marriage certificate, I would have been (religiously) joined to my wife but not (legally) joined to my wife. Not all marriages have a spiritual or religious component. Churches, and the people in them, are (and should be) free to deny the religious status of marriage to anyone that doesn't meet their religious rules. However, the civil (and secular) status of marriage is (and should be) independent of specific religious concerns. Your priest can marry you under god, but if he isn't licensed by the state, he can't marry you under the law.
Despite this (already present) property of marriage, people often conflate and confuse the two flavors of marriage.
Gay marriage imposes on the religious function/meaning of marriage only insofar as a protestant marriage imposes on the religious meaning of a Catholic's wedding, or that of a pagan on someone else's religious wedding. The religious content (and validity) of any wedding (gay, straight, protestant, whatever) is only present from some point of view (catholic, protestant, muslim.....).
If we believe in religious freedom, then we have to ignore the religious meaning of marriage when discussing whether or not to exclude any group from enjoying marriage. Each of us is free to be (religiously) married according to our faith or conscience, whatever that is, and each of us (by virtue of our religious viewpoints) are free to declare anyone as (religiously) married or not according to that faith. What can NOT be allowed to happen is for any religious view on marriage to become the standard by which secular (civil) marriage is decided.

I would go so far as to add that mere immorality is not sufficient grounds to restrict, outlaw, or infringe upon another's behavior or access to rights/civil benefits. This applies broadly, I believe. Freedoms of religion and speech are actually impossible if you believe that mere immorality is a sufficient reason to restrict the behaviors or freedoms of another.

What is of interest is deciding what constitues a valid reason to deny rights to a group of people, or to restrict access to legal benefits to a group of people.

The most compassionate and reasoned thing that the socially conservative members of our society can do is to recognize that it is unjust to exclude gay people from the civil aspect of marriage (which is really just a complicated set of legal relationships, benefits, duties, and rights), even if it is morally required that you view them as lacking the religious sanctification of marriage. The state has no religious authority. Allowing gay marriage takes nothing away from the pope's right to declare gay marriages spiritually bankrupt, or illegitimate. Because of this, even if gay marriage were made legal, you could spend some good christian quality time explaining to your children how you (and they, assuming they are straight) are living the true meaning of marriage that your god (or gods or whatever you believe in) ordained, while all those filthy perverts are just pretending to be married before they meet their final, firey end.

Not only is it ok to be obviously homosexual, now the relationship is going to be a basis for adopting children? I think that would be like alcoholism becoming a plus for adopting kids. As long as you've got your drinking buddy with you, you're good to go! I'm sure this is the paragraph people are going to pick apart, which is fine, but whatever. If adoptions normally go to couples and the whole reason you're a couple is because you're gay together, then I don't see that as right or acceptable.

Anyway, these are my reasons.

I have to assume that you believe that the only thing that couples do is copulate. I certainly hope that you and your wife's relationship has more going for it than just a penchant for vaginal intercourse. The straight couples I know tend to own property together, share hobbies, talk, share significant moments together, take care of each other, raise their kids, work, cook, clean, go to church, etc, and (if there is time, energy, and interest) copulate. The reason most people are together is not so that they can "be straight together" or "be gay together" in the way that your use of the term suggests. Sex is important to adult human happiness (for those who aren't asexual), which is why most adult couples who love one another also engage in sexual activity. However, sex is not the defining, unifying, or binding feature of mature adult relationships. Love, respect, and companionship are also key. This is true of both gay and straight people.

 

[MoosePilot]

So if they're just together to hang out, watch good movies, and read good books - why are they necessarily with someone of the same sexual persuasion? The difference between a couple and a friendship is sexuality. Whether it's the only thing or not is irrelevant, it's the defining aspect of a couple that makes them different from a set of good friends.

As to whether I think the government should have gotten involved in marriage, no I don't. Not now. I think individual employers should have the option of providing benefits, but now I wish the government had stayed out of the business of sanctioning relationships.

 

[Fermata]

 

[Elysium]

I oppose gay marriage.

Why? Why is it my business? I'd normally bill myself as somewhat of a libertarian, so why am I getting involved in something that doesn't affect me?

Well, it's many tiered.

1. Marriage started out as a religious sacrament. Marriage has been around longer than the United States, longer than our current social climate, and longer than the current rate of divorce. This argument has led me to understand that the first mistake was allowing government to concern itself in what is, essentially, a religious matter. I don't feel same sex couples can marry, because I don't think God will recognize them as married. "What God has joined...". The government passing laws saying that suddenly they can marry will interfere with that. Should I become a small business owner, or am in some way regulated by the government, I will be forced to "recognize" a marriage which I believe is sacrilegious. Let's say I'm running a small private practice and I hire a very professional young woman. We have a small picnic to welcome her to the office and she shows up with her "wife". Great. If the law goes the way proponents want it to, now I've got a "married couple" that I don't really want my children exposed to. Outstanding.

2. I'm not totally against civil unions, because it's a government thing and should be decided democratically. However, I think the government needs to research the cost of it. Suddenly, a whole new class of people will be entitled to benefits that weren't previously. Insurance costs, for instance, need to be examined.

3. Other benefits involve things I'm not comfortable with. I think homosexuality is morally wrong. Heck, I do a lot that's morally wrong, so why is that a problem? I recognize that some aspects of my lifestyle are a problem. When I drink too much, I don't flaunt it. When I'm having sex, I don't invite others to watch. But homosexuality is becoming the central focus and very public, now that it's growing to be socially acceptable. Not only is it ok to be obviously homosexual, now the relationship is going to be a basis for adopting children? I think that would be like alcoholism becoming a plus for adopting kids. As long as you've got your drinking buddy with you, you're good to go! I'm sure this is the paragraph people are going to pick apart, which is fine, but whatever. If adoptions normally go to couples and the whole reason you're a couple is because you're gay together, then I don't see that as right or acceptable.

Anyway, these are my reasons.

If god exists, which the more bullsh1t I read from sanctimonous religious assclowns leads me to believe it doesn't, I pray that they never have to come into contact with small minded, angry, hateful, crossbow weilding maniacs that troll for women on line.

Baby jesus, I pray to you that my precious unborn child will never go to a company picnic and observe one of my employees "married" to a sterotypical southern angry religious military blowhard.

Father, son, and the holy ghost.

Amen.

 

[Indryd]

Hi everyone! I hope this thread provides a safe space for discussion of straight related issues in medical school and medicine. We need a space that can be just ours as well.

^ ^ ^ still in the closet...sad.

 

[jbone]

If god exists, which the more bullsh1t I read from sanctimonous religious assclowns leads me to believe it doesn't, I pray that they never have to come into contact with small minded, angry, hateful, crossbow weilding maniacs that troll for women on line.

Baby jesus, I pray to you that my precious unborn child will never go to a company picnic and observe one of my employees "married" to a sterotypical southern angry religious military blowhard.

Father, son, and the holy ghost.

Amen.

WTF??

 

[zenith]

If god exists, which the more bullsh1t I read from sanctimonous religious assclowns leads me to believe it doesn't, I pray that they never have to come into contact with small minded, angry, hateful, crossbow weilding maniacs that troll for women on line.

Baby jesus, I pray to you that my precious unborn child will never go to a company picnic and observe one of my employees "married" to a sterotypical southern angry religious military blowhard.

Father, son, and the holy ghost.

Amen.

What a disgrace, this thread is less than a day old and already we see religion and homosexuals savaged on line. And the worst thing is people think they are somehow doing a positive thing by attacking religion in retaliation to homosexuals and vice versa.

Moderators get off your arse and give this thread the fate it deserves.

 

[gregMD]

Religion breeds close-mindedness - its a vice for the weak, and is the biggest hypocrisy known to man. I dont know how any body can subscribe to a prescribed way of thinking - it boggles my mind.

I suppose if God said that Chinese people couldn't get married you would support that too......... If you're going to ban something - i think you should ban religion - its toxic.

By the way, i'm straight. I firmly believe that anybody who wants to get married, and have a family, has the right to do so. Nobody - not the government, and certainly not the bloody church, has any business saying otherwise.

 

[zenith]

Religion breeds close-mindedness - its a vice for the weak, and is the biggest hypocrisy known to man. I dont know how any body can subscribe to a prescribed way of thinking - it boggles my mind.

I suppose if God said that Chinese people couldn't get married you would support that too......... If you're going to ban something - i think you should ban religion - its toxic.

Oh my goodness stop trolling and get a life.

 

[Hurricane]

I oppose gay marriage.

Why? Why is it my business? I'd normally bill myself as somewhat of a libertarian, so why am I getting involved in something that doesn't affect me?

Well, it's many tiered.

1. Marriage started out as a religious sacrament. Marriage has been around longer than the United States, longer than our current social climate, and longer than the current rate of divorce. This argument has led me to understand that the first mistake was allowing government to concern itself in what is, essentially, a religious matter. I don't feel same sex couples can marry, because I don't think God will recognize them as married. "What God has joined...". The government passing laws saying that suddenly they can marry will interfere with that. Should I become a small business owner, or am in some way regulated by the government, I will be forced to "recognize" a marriage which I believe is sacrilegious. Let's say I'm running a small private practice and I hire a very professional young woman. We have a small picnic to welcome her to the office and she shows up with her "wife". Great. If the law goes the way proponents want it to, now I've got a "married couple" that I don't really want my children exposed to. Outstanding.

2. I'm not totally against civil unions, because it's a government thing and should be decided democratically. However, I think the government needs to research the cost of it. Suddenly, a whole new class of people will be entitled to benefits that weren't previously. Insurance costs, for instance, need to be examined.

3. Other benefits involve things I'm not comfortable with. I think homosexuality is morally wrong. Heck, I do a lot that's morally wrong, so why is that a problem? I recognize that some aspects of my lifestyle are a problem. When I drink too much, I don't flaunt it. When I'm having sex, I don't invite others to watch. But homosexuality is becoming the central focus and very public, now that it's growing to be socially acceptable. Not only is it ok to be obviously homosexual, now the relationship is going to be a basis for adopting children? I think that would be like alcoholism becoming a plus for adopting kids. As long as you've got your drinking buddy with you, you're good to go! I'm sure this is the paragraph people are going to pick apart, which is fine, but whatever. If adoptions normally go to couples and the whole reason you're a couple is because you're gay together, then I don't see that as right or acceptable.

Anyway, these are my reasons.

I do understand that many people think that homosexuality and gay marriage is morally wrong, according to their religious belief system. And that's their right. What I don't understand is why people feel there needs to be laws against it - laws based soley on religious belief. I mean, lots of people think interracial marriage is wrong - and that's their right to think that, but people aren't passing amendments to legally ban it.

It seems to me that many people who oppose gay marriage do so in order to "preserve the sanctity of marriage." So do you think that allowing gays to marry or have civil unions is somehow threatening to your heterosexual marriage? How exactly? Really - I don't get understand the logic. Nobody has adequately explained it to me.

Are you afraid that allowing gays to marry means that your church will be forced to perform gay marriages? I don't think that the proponents of gay marrage are suggesting that, because that would violate the tenent of separation of church and state.

Speaking of separation of church and state - do you believe in that tenet? If so, how do you reconcile that with voting to disallow a group of people a legal civil union on the basis of your religious belief?

This is the way I see things:

Marriage has several components - 1) it is a statement of committment and love between two people, 2) it is a civil union that gives the partners certain rights, and 3) to SOME people, but not ALL people, it is a religious sacrement. For example, I am an agnostic and my husband is an atheist, so #3 played no part in our definition of marriage; it was not performed in a church or blessed by a member of the clergy. I realize that our marriage probably wouldn't be recognized in the Catholic church (or other churches), and I don't care, because we don't belong to any church. But I don't think there is anyone out there who would deny us the LEGAL rights of a married couple because we chose to have a secular marriage. So why oppose gays being joined in a civil ceremony like we were?

Historically, marriage was a secular ceremony long before the Christian church got involved. In medieval Eurpoe, marriages were performed outside in the community, and sometimes blessed by a clergymember after the fact. (here's an for an interesting, nonpolitcal article about the history of marriage and betrothal ceremonies.) Anyway, it seems to me that many of the gay marriage opponents have forgotten this fact and believe that everyone's definition of marriage should be LEGALLY based on what it says in the Christian Bible.

I guess my problem with the opposing viewpoint is this: why are you unable or unwilling to separate the secular compents of marriage/union from the religious components. Esp in a country that claims to have no national religion?

I think that the state shouldn't be in the business of marrying people. The state should grant civil unions. Churches should marry people. This is how it's done in many European countries. You go to the courthouse and get your civil union, then you have a religious marriage ceremony if you belong to a church. Or not, if you don't belong to a church. The church shouldn't be in the business of telling the state who can and can't get civil unions, and the state shouldn't be in the business of telling churches who they can and can't marry. The problem in this country is that people are unable or unwilling to separate the religious and civil components of coupling.

 

[MoosePilot]

If god exists, which the more bullsh1t I read from sanctimonous religious assclowns leads me to believe it doesn't, I pray that they never have to come into contact with small minded, angry, hateful, crossbow weilding maniacs that troll for women on line.

Baby jesus, I pray to you that my precious unborn child will never go to a company picnic and observe one of my employees "married" to a sterotypical southern angry religious military blowhard.

Father, son, and the holy ghost.

Amen.

This is a mischaracterization and I don't appreciate it. You're mistaken on many points. If you have any questions, you can PM me, but I think if you're going to talk about hatefullness you need to look at yourself first.

As for trolling for women online, you met your live in boyfriend on SDN and started dating after a meet. I don't want to hear it, because my situation is very similar.

 

[Dr. Josh]

I had a few straight friends once. I don't mind straight people as long as they don't flaunt their sexuality. I also don't get straight people that run around playing "victim" because they aren't in a recognized minority status. They should just chill out and be themselves.

Why are you on our thread?

 

[Dr. Josh]

Because it was created in spite. Sometimes its not the action, but the motivation for the action. What aspect of medicine is NOT straight related? I feel sorry for you guys. I wont post in this thread again, you can have it. Just like the rest of the world. Go look at what the GLBT thread has been reduced to.

No, it was not created in spite. It was created because I was told I didn't belong on the other thread (I was not bashing at all and was respectful, and just offered my opinions). I explained that all threads were open to everyone. This just proved, that despite my title, that those it didn't apply to came here also. Not spite, just proving a point. In addition, I'd be happy to have a discussion about dealing with marriage and babies while in med school.

Edit: I don't think this was started necessarily in spite. Nothing spiteful was said. I think it was started out of defiance, which is a different thing. You can do it, we can do it. I don't think that's nasty enough to qualify as spite.

That's true. I wouldn't even call it defiance but essentially you got the point.

 

[Ypo.]

Nice, Fermata.

 

[ocean11]

Yes

 

[2010MD]

Having kids in med school/residency? Is it practical? Scheduling weddings during a busy education/career. Dating/finding a significant other while busy and without accidentally ending up with someone motivated by your perceived status/finances?

May I ask what makes these exclusively straight issues, to the extent that they should be discussed in a "straights and their allies" thread? These are family issues that people of all orientations grapple with throughout medical school and their careers. Just because I'm not straight doesn't mean I'm not debating when the right time to have kids will be, or that finding a significant other is any less time-consuming or emotionally taxing...

 

[kimmcauliffe]

May I ask what makes these exclusively straight issues

Nothing does. They just like to think they are.

 

[Ypo.]

Nothing does. They just like to think they are.

Not all of us think that way. I really think this whole thing of having a gay club and a nongay club on SDN is ....well, gay. And by that I mean I think it is dumb.

I'm sorry to anyone on the GLBT thread who felt like I butted in. Can we get over this now??

 

[RefractoryMD]

Well, instead of using this thread to validate whether this thread is valid or not, I'm gonna post a "STRAIGHT RELATED MEDICAL ISSUE!"

Anyone get dumped because of your choice to enter medical school? I did and the reason I was given went along the lines of "I just can not compete with this decision." I didn't think relationships (AND OH LORDY ITS A STRAIGHT RELATIONSHIP, KIDS, DONT FREAK OUT) were meant to be competitive. Your thoughts...

 

[kimmcauliffe]

Not all of us think that way. I really think this whole thing of having a gay club and a nongay club on SDN is ....well, gay. And by that I mean I think it is dumb.

I agree!

 

[marcus_aurelius]

I agree!

this post takes the prize for being most ******ed

to all u horny chics out there, take it to the lounge

 

[marcus_aurelius]

I agree!

this post takes the prize for being most ******ed

to all u horny chics out there, take it to the lounge

this service needs a faster server too!

 

[MoosePilot]

May I ask what makes these exclusively straight issues, to the extent that they should be discussed in a "straights and their allies" thread? These are family issues that people of all orientations grapple with throughout medical school and their careers. Just because I'm not straight doesn't mean I'm not debating when the right time to have kids will be, or that finding a significant other is any less time-consuming or emotionally taxing...

Well, I personally wouldn't be really open to your input, if I knew you were homosexual and you wouldn't really be open to my explanation that I don't want to hear from you. To me, they're straight issues, because two men having kids was only cool in "My Two Dads".

The same way, would you really want to hear my input on these issues? If I start talking to you about delivery, childbirth, spouse taking maternity leave - is that going to be helpful to you? The experiences are different enough, even if you don't acknowledge the validity of any moral objections to one side, to not need to be discussed together.

 

[liveandlearn]

i had to come back and take a look. and let me just say this thread breaks my heart. even the good intentioned like yposhelley proove how deeply engrained homophobia is in our society with her use of the word "gay." When words develop negative connotations and are used in a completely irrelevant context to convey a "bad" message, then something in our society is a miss.

To moose;

Homosexuality has been around MUCH LONGER THAN JESUS or even judaism for that matter. Read a history book. I suspect your opinions will never change and you will die the same way you are now. Some people are just that way and I feel for you.

By the way, I am bi, does this mean I am entitled to both threads?

 

[2010MD]

Well, I personally wouldn't be really open to your input, if I knew you were homosexual and you wouldn't really be open to my explanation that I don't want to hear from you. To me, they're straight issues, because two men having kids was only cool in "My Two Dads".

The same way, would you really want to hear my input on these issues? If I start talking to you about delivery, childbirth, spouse taking maternity leave - is that going to be helpful to you? The experiences are different enough, even if you don't acknowledge the validity of any moral objections to one side, to not need to be discussed together.

As I am female and may possibly be dealing with pregnancy, delivery, childbirth, and taking maternity leave during medical school and/or my residency, yes these are issues relevant to my life. I assume my experience and concerns will be relatively similar to that of your spouse. My point is that your implication that having a family is a straight concern warranting its own straight thread (as opposed to, oh, say, a family thread?) is ridiculous. If there were a family thread and I posted my questions there, chances are you wouldn't even notice they weren't coming from a straight female.

As far as moral objections etc go, I don't even know what you're talking about. You posted topics you thought needed a "straight thread safe space," and my point is that those topics are not limited to straight people. You didn't bring up your morals and I didn't bring up mine.

 

[Ypo.]

Live and learn-you really need to learn how to lighten up a little. Try the 'live' part of your name, OK?

My point was that this whole exclusion between gay threads and nongay threads was stupid. I apologize for the 'pun' in bad taste-I should have known by your past posts that you would be unable to not take it seriously.

For crying out loud-do you ever laugh?? Its not good to take yourself so seriously all the time.

 

[MoosePilot]

As I am female and may possibly be dealing with pregnancy, delivery, childbirth, and taking maternity leave during medical school and/or my residency, yes these are issues relevant to my life. I assume my experience and concerns will be relatively similar to that of your spouse. My point is that your implication that having a family is a straight concern warranting its own straight thread (as opposed to, oh, say, a family thread?) is ridiculous. If there were a family thread and I posted my questions there, chances are you wouldn't even notice they weren't coming from a straight female.

As far as moral objections etc go, I don't even know what you're talking about. You posted topics you thought needed a "straight thread safe space," and my point is that those topics are not limited to straight people. You didn't bring up your morals and I didn't bring up mine.

If you posted solely issues that were shared by heterosexuals, I don't think it would ever come up.

If you brought up issues like finding a sperm donor if you're a lesbian, then those aren't shared issues and, in my opinion, would find a better reception in a homosexual issue thread.

That's all I'm saying. Shared issues are shared issues and if approached that way without highlighting the fact that they're not really shared issues, there is no problem.

 

[2010MD]

you brought up issues like finding a sperm donor if you're a lesbian, then those aren't shared issues and, in my opinion, would find a better reception in a homosexual issue thread.

Sperm donor?! You realize the analogous act here, by your logic, is the act of you physically inseminating your wife. And no one wants to read about that here or anywhere. You brought up pregnancy, childbirth, and other life experience straight people aren't uniquely capable of. My point is, all of ths situations you brought up are potentially shared experiences. If you're going to make an argument, at least try to infuse it with some logic.

 

[MoosePilot]

Sperm donor?! You realize the analogous act here, by your logic, is the act of you physically inseminating your wife. And no one wants to read about that here or anywhere. You brought up pregnancy, childbirth, and other life experience straight people aren't uniquely capable of. My point is, all of ths situations you brought up are potentially shared experiences. If you're going to make an argument, at least try to infuse it with some logic.

Wow, you're amazing. "Potentially" shared experiences, sure. My response is keep it to the shared experience and I'm fine with it in a shared thread. Start getting into the gay specific crap and I'm not interested and, in those cases, would rather it be kept in a gay interest thread.

Did you notice the title of this thread?

 

[2010MD]

Wow, you're amazing.

No, MoosePilot, you're amazing. Who ever would have thought, after all that, we'd end up so in love.

 

[MoosePilot]

No, MoosePilot, you're amazing. Who ever would have thought, after all that, we'd end up so in love.

 

[india7]

Flipping the tables on the questions normally asked LGBT population...
1. When and how did you choose to be a heterosexual?
2. What do you think caused your heterosexuality?
3. Is it possible that your heterosexuality may just be a phase you grow out of?
4. Why do you insist on flaunting your heterosexuality? Why can't you just be quiet about it?
5. Over 90% of child molesters are heterosexual. Do you consider it safe to expose your child to heterosexual tendancies?
6. The divorce rate is 50%. Why are there so few stable relationships among heterosexuals?
7. Why do heterosexuals place so much interest in sex?
8. Have you considered conversion therapy to change your heterosexuality?

Regarding the issue of homosexuals not being allowed to marry b/c they can't have kids....should infertile couples not be allowed to marry? people who choose not to have kids? senior citizens? in fact should everyone sign a contract that they will have children and women only be allowed to marry if they pre-menopause?

I am straight and married. Even though i am not gay, I am completely committed as an ally, particularly against people who prohibit others from being in a legally recognized relationship together based only on their own biases.

 

[Ypo.]

Flipping the tables on the questions normally asked LGBT population...
1. When and how did you choose to be a heterosexual?
2. What do you think caused your heterosexuality?
3. Is it possible that your heterosexuality may just be a phase you grow out of?
4. Why do you insist on flaunting your heterosexuality? Why can't you just be quiet about it?
5. Over 90% of child molesters are heterosexual. Do you consider it safe to expose your child to heterosexual tendancies?
6. The divorce rate is 50%. Why are there so few stable relationships among heterosexuals?
7. Why do heterosexuals place so much interest in sex?
8. Have you considered conversion therapy to change your heterosexuality?

Regarding the issue of homosexuals not being allowed to marry b/c they can't have kids....should infertile couples not be allowed to marry? people who choose not to have kids? senior citizens? in fact should everyone sign a contract that they will have children and women only be allowed to marry if they pre-menopause?

I am straight and married. Even though i am not gay, I am completely committed as an ally, particularly against people who prohibit others from being in a legally recognized relationship together based only on their own biases.

...sigh...good questions...good points...

I guess the answer to #1,2, and 7 is that most people are heterosexual because human beings are not capable of cloning themselves. In other words, there is an evolutionary advantage to procreating. Is there an evolutionary advantage to being homosexual?

Do gay marriages have a better success rate? I would think with the pressure society places on them it would make it harder to stay together.