I've no problem with the politics of this, but does it comply with the MUTCD?

[empirestate]

I wouldn't worry so much about the sex part. Most of us have no trouble avoiding thoughts of sex when we see a mother, father and their child out in public, yet of course sex is the one absolutely essential ingredient in producing that group of people. We're more interested in their relationship as parents and child.

So, think of the rainbow as celebrating something more on those lines, in the same way you'd look at a pro-fatherhood billboard from the DSS, which promotes the healthy relationship between a man and his son rather than the sex he had to get one.

[Kacie Jane]

It's called homosexuality or heterosexuality precisely because it refers to sex.  If a person has never had sex before, then I think the correct answer to said person's "orientation" should be "not sexually active"–not homo-, hetero-, bi-, or anything-else-sexual.

To paraphrase and expand on what Jake said... No.  Sexual orientation refers to whom someone is attracted to.  Virgins of any age are perfectly capable of knowing whether they are gay, straight, bi, pan, etc.  A teenager who has only had sexual contact with the opposite sex because that was all that was socially acceptable can certainly be homosexual.

Most importantly, someone can be straight and still be a member of the pride community.  The rainbow has absolutely nothing to do with sex, it has to do with pride and anti-discrimination.

ETA:  Really?  This had to be my 500th post?  Damn.

[Sanctimoniously]

It's called homosexuality or heterosexuality precisely because it refers to sex.  If a person has never had sex before, then I think the correct answer to said person's "orientation" should be "not sexually active"–not homo-, hetero-, bi-, or anything-else-sexual.

To paraphrase and expand on what Jake said... No.  Sexual orientation refers to whom someone is attracted to.  Virgins of any age are perfectly capable of knowing whether they are gay, straight, bi, pan, etc.  A teenager who has only had sexual contact with the opposite sex because that was all that was socially acceptable can certainly be homosexual.

Most importantly, someone can be straight and still be a member of the pride community.  The rainbow has absolutely nothing to do with sex, it has to do with pride and anti-discrimination.

ETA:  Really?  This had to be my 500th post?  Damn.

I wish I could like or heartclick this post.

[cpzilliacus]

It's called homosexuality or heterosexuality precisely because it refers to sex.  If a person has never had sex before, then I think the correct answer to said person's "orientation" should be "not sexually active"–not homo-, hetero-, bi-, or anything-else-sexual.

To paraphrase and expand on what Jake said... No.  Sexual orientation refers to whom someone is attracted to.  Virgins of any age are perfectly capable of knowing whether they are gay, straight, bi, pan, etc.  A teenager who has only had sexual contact with the opposite sex because that was all that was socially acceptable can certainly be homosexual.

Most importantly, someone can be straight and still be a member of the pride community.  The rainbow has absolutely nothing to do with sex, it has to do with pride and anti-discrimination.

Very well stated.  And I happen to strongly agree with the last sentence above.

[Alps]

It's called homosexuality or heterosexuality precisely because it refers to sex.  If a person has never had sex before, then I think the correct answer to said person's "orientation" should be "not sexually active"–not homo-, hetero-, bi-, or anything-else-sexual.

To paraphrase and expand on what Jake said... No.  Sexual orientation refers to whom someone is attracted to.  Virgins of any age are perfectly capable of knowing whether they are gay, straight, bi, pan, etc.  A teenager who has only had sexual contact with the opposite sex because that was all that was socially acceptable can certainly be homosexual.

Most importantly, someone can be straight and still be a member of the pride community.  The rainbow has absolutely nothing to do with sex, it has to do with pride and anti-discrimination.

ETA:  Really?  This had to be my 500th post?  Damn.

I want to friend you on Facebook.
EDIT: Your post inspired me to edit my avatar. I'm a straight supporter of the pride movement and happy to show it.

[NE2]

I'm a proud supporter of the straight movement... wait, what?

[Scott5114]

It's called homosexuality or heterosexuality precisely because it refers to sex.  If a person has never had sex before, then I think the correct answer to said person's "orientation" should be "not sexually active"–not homo-, hetero-, bi-, or anything-else-sexual.

To paraphrase and expand on what Jake said... No.  Sexual orientation refers to whom someone is attracted to.  Virgins of any age are perfectly capable of knowing whether they are gay, straight, bi, pan, etc.  A teenager who has only had sexual contact with the opposite sex because that was all that was socially acceptable can certainly be homosexual.

Most importantly, someone can be straight and still be a member of the pride community.  The rainbow has absolutely nothing to do with sex, it has to do with pride and anti-discrimination.

ETA:  Really?  This had to be my 500th post?  Damn.

I want to friend you on Facebook.
EDIT: Your post inspired me to edit my avatar. I'm a straight supporter of the pride movement and happy to show it.

I just have to remark at the irony of a sign from Oklahoma, of all states, being altered in such a way. Especially considering the Biblical button copy that can be found in Oklahoma.

[bugo]

Sex on the forefront of culture may harm the development of my children.  I would prefer to have some control over how, when, and at what pace my children are exposed to sex.  That's part of my job as a father.

You can't shelter your kids forever.  Trust me, if you don't teach them about sex, they will learn about it at school.  Wouldn't you rather teach them the truth rather than myths that 3rd graders spread?

I detect a hint of homophobia in your posts.  Why are you so threatened by gays?  I don't give a rat's ass what anybody does in their bedrooms as long as it doesn't harm anybody that doesn't want to be harmed.

[flowmotion]

Most importantly, someone can be straight and still be a member of the pride community.  The rainbow has absolutely nothing to do with sex, it has to do with pride and anti-discrimination.

True. Someone younger might associate the rainbow flag with gay politics. But the original meaning was more along the lines of "diversity" as the symbol came out of the civil rights movement. As one Baptist minister said, "Red or Yellow or Black or White, we're all God's children in his sight."

Still, I think painting on the crosswalks is kinda cheap and touristic. Hang it on the lightpoles like we do here in San Francisco.

[rickmastfan67]

The permanent installation is expected to be completed next week and is estimated to cost nearly $70,000.

$70,000 for a crosswalk installation?!?!?!?! WTF?

[cpzilliacus]

Sex on the forefront of culture may harm the development of my children.  I would prefer to have some control over how, when, and at what pace my children are exposed to sex.  That's part of my job as a father.

You can't shelter your kids forever.  Trust me, if you don't teach them about sex, they will learn about it at school.  Wouldn't you rather teach them the truth rather than myths that 3rd graders spread?

That is exactly why I took my (teenaged) stepsons (both straight) to a gay eating establishment for brunch (with an openly gay) friend of mine.

I detect a hint of homophobia in your posts.  Why are you so threatened by gays?  I don't give a rat's ass what anybody does in their bedrooms as long as it doesn't harm anybody that doesn't want to be harmed.

I did not, and I hope you are incorrect regarding your detection.

[cpzilliacus]

The permanent installation is expected to be completed next week and is estimated to cost nearly $70,000.

$70,000 for a crosswalk installation?!?!?!?! WTF?

I assume that the material and the labor costs are much higher than if it had been just one color.

Now I get the impression that as a municipality, West Hollywood is pretty  well-off, so perhaps that's a non-issue.

[cpzilliacus]

I am to blame for starting this thread.

Can I make it perfectly clear (and no, I am not related to Richard Nixon) that:

• That they are honoring gay people is irrelevant to me (what consenting adults do in their own bedrooms is simply not my concern);
• If any political subdivision wants to honor some segment of its population for whatever reason, it's usually fine by me; - but -
• In doing the honoring, serious consideration should be given to the safety aspects of what is proposed  (I don't think West Hollywood did that).

[agentsteel53]

I'm a proud supporter of the straight movement... wait, what?

I support movement.  Poo on, everyone!

(eliminate comma as needed.)

[kphoger]

Sex on the forefront of culture may harm the development of my children.  I would prefer to have some control over how, when, and at what pace my children are exposed to sex.  That's part of my job as a father.

You can't shelter your kids forever.  Trust me, if you don't teach them about sex, they will learn about it at school.  Wouldn't you rather teach them the truth rather than myths that 3rd graders spread?

That is exactly why I took my (teenaged) stepsons (both straight) to a gay eating establishment for brunch (with an openly gay) friend of mine.

Obviously I can't shelter my children forever; in fact, that would be a very dangerous thing to try to do to a child.  But I would like to have as much control as possible over when and how my child is exposed to things sexual.  Most parents I know feel the same way.  My four-year-old is a very observant child–he already shows signs of roadgeekiness–and you can bet he would ask why the crosswalk looks like a rainbow.  Now, you and I may disagree on whether or not homosexuality is just as acceptable as heterosexuality, but can you really not understand how a parent wouldn't want to give any answer to that question until the child has reached a certain level of maturity and understanding?

I detect a hint of homophobia in your posts.  Why are you so threatened by gays?  I don't give a rat's ass what anybody does in their bedrooms as long as it doesn't harm anybody that doesn't want to be harmed.

I did not, and I hope you are incorrect regarding your detection.

Homophobia is an overused word.  I have a moral stance against homosexuality, but it's certainly not based on a phobia.  A phobia is an irrational fear.  I have no problem with equal rights etc., and certainly don't try to avoid interacting with the gay community.  Heck, we went to Chick-fil-A not only their Appreciation Day last month, but also during the "Kiss In" the following Friday (which, incidentally, ended up being just a bunch of people with signs standing by the road).  My wife and I are currently working our way through Queer Eye for the Straight Guy.

It's not that I feel 'threatened' any more than I do by anything else I believe is morally wrong–by which I mean that what individuals do affects society as a whole; though it may not threaten me personally, I find it impossible to say flat out that certain things are 'threats'.  As John Donne said (though Donne was writing about death, the same applies):

No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main; if a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as if a manor of thy friend's or of thine own were; any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind...

It's called homosexuality or heterosexuality precisely because it refers to sex.  If a person has never had sex before, then I think the correct answer to said person's "orientation" should be "not sexually active"—not homo-, hetero-, bi-, or anything-else-sexual.

To paraphrase and expand on what Jake said... No.  Sexual orientation refers to whom someone is attracted to.  Virgins of any age are perfectly capable of knowing whether they are gay, straight, bi, pan, etc.  A teenager who has only had sexual contact with the opposite sex because that was all that was socially acceptable can certainly be homosexual.

Most importantly, someone can be straight and still be a member of the pride community.  The rainbow has absolutely nothing to do with sex, it has to do with pride and anti-discrimination.

ETA:  Really?  This had to be my 500th post?  Damn.

I understand the truth underlying what you say.  But "the rainbow has absoutely nothing to do with sex" is simply false.  People are not disqualified from jobs, adoption rights, etc. because of the attractions they feel inside their own minds.  Nor does society have a problem with people of the same sex living together, being devoted or loving toward each other, spending time together, or whatever (they're called roommates, relatives, or friends, respectively).  It's only when that relationship becomes sexual in nature that the real discrimination begins.  While it may be true that being gay is more than just sex (such as associated gender roles, social identity, etc.), it's crazy talk to say that it's simply not about sex.

It's called a sex change operation because it changes the way you have sex.

Why is this a hard concept to understand?
___

But, that's as may be.  People's views on this topic are obviously not equal, and it's obviously a hot topic.  Just look at our nation's history.  I just think it was an inappropriate action by a government agency.

[agentsteel53]

Just look at our nation's history. 

it has progressed steadily towards more and more equal rights for people of all kinds.

[NE2]

It's called a sex change operation because it changes the way you have sex.

Why is this a hard concept to understand?

Why is what? My biting sarcasm?

[intelati49]

  And it got political. I get enough from CNN, and come to this site and get hit with more. 

[agentsteel53]

And it got political. I get enough from CNN, and come to this site and get hit with more. 

well, that's what you get when there's one reactionary on the forum who refuses to leave behind the "eww, gay people are gay" attitude that most of us abandoned by middle school.

[kphoger]

eww, gay people are gay

It's called a sex change operation because it changes the way you have sex.

Why is this a hard concept to understand?

Why is what? My biting sarcasm?

Ha!  You and me both, man...  No, that sexuality is actually about sex. 

[kphoger]

Enquiring minds still want to know:  Why are 'the politics of this' and 'MUTCD' even in the same sentence?

[NE2]

Ha!  You and me both, man...  No, that sexuality is actually about sex. 

It is, if by sex you mean gender. Duh.

[intelati49]

... sex. 

In this context this gif is quite creepy.

[cpzilliacus]

Sex on the forefront of culture may harm the development of my children.  I would prefer to have some control over how, when, and at what pace my children are exposed to sex.  That's part of my job as a father.

You can't shelter your kids forever.  Trust me, if you don't teach them about sex, they will learn about it at school.  Wouldn't you rather teach them the truth rather than myths that 3rd graders spread?

That is exactly why I took my (teenaged) stepsons (both straight) to a gay eating establishment for brunch (with an openly gay) friend of mine.

Obviously I can't shelter my children forever; in fact, that would be a very dangerous thing to try to do to a child.  But I would like to have as much control as possible over when and how my child is exposed to things sexual.  Most parents I know feel the same way.  My four-year-old is a very observant child–he already shows signs of roadgeekiness–and you can bet he would ask why the crosswalk looks like a rainbow.  Now, you and I may disagree on whether or not homosexuality is just as acceptable as heterosexuality, but can you really not understand how a parent wouldn't want to give any answer to that question until the child has reached a certain level of maturity and understanding?

First, I am going to defer to your sensibilities and values as a parent.  He's your son.

Having said that, I have told my stepsons that there are people out there who are "wired" to have preferences that are for persons of the same sex, instead of the opposite sex.  One of them understands that even better since he started in a high school where the principal is openly Lesbian.  My understanding is that straight or gay is not something that people can choose (even though I just used the word preference). 

But more to the point, as I said up-thread, I don't have any concern about what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own bedrooms (unless it involves me or someone I am in a relationship with).

Unlike when I was in school (I graduated high school in 1976), there are also persons who are openly homosexual in school these days (and I don't have a problem with that either), so it's not as much of a big deal as it once was.  In my opinion, that is a good thing.

I detect a hint of homophobia in your posts.  Why are you so threatened by gays?  I don't give a rat's ass what anybody does in their bedrooms as long as it doesn't harm anybody that doesn't want to be harmed.

I did not, and I hope you are incorrect regarding your detection.

Homophobia is an overused word.  I have a moral stance against homosexuality, but it's certainly not based on a phobia.  A phobia is an irrational fear.  I have no problem with equal rights etc., and certainly don't try to avoid interacting with the gay community.  Heck, we went to Chick-fil-A not only their Appreciation Day last month, but also during the "Kiss In" the following Friday (which, incidentally, ended up being just a bunch of people with signs standing by the road).  My wife and I are currently working our way through Queer Eye for the Straight Guy.

It's not that I feel 'threatened' any more than I do by anything else I believe is morally wrong–by which I mean that what individuals do affects society as a whole; though it may not threaten me personally, I find it impossible to say flat out that certain things are 'threats'.  As John Donne said (though Donne was writing about death, the same applies):

No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main; if a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as if a manor of thy friend's or of thine own were; any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind...

I am sure as Hades not going to try to tell you what your morals should be regarding sexuality.  It's not my place to do such a thing. 

But a certain percentage of the human population is gay.  That seems to be a fact, and it does not matter what the race or ethnic origin or other demographic group you want to use, and no amount of moral or religious objection is going to change that.  I object vigorously to efforts to use government and government powers to discriminate against persons that happen to be gay.  In a sense it is unfortunate that gay people have seen it necessary to move to areas like West Hollywood and San Francisco, but apparently they do.

It's called homosexuality or heterosexuality precisely because it refers to sex.  If a person has never had sex before, then I think the correct answer to said person's "orientation" should be "not sexually active"–not homo-, hetero-, bi-, or anything-else-sexual.

To paraphrase and expand on what Jake said... No.  Sexual orientation refers to whom someone is attracted to.  Virgins of any age are perfectly capable of knowing whether they are gay, straight, bi, pan, etc.  A teenager who has only had sexual contact with the opposite sex because that was all that was socially acceptable can certainly be homosexual.

Most importantly, someone can be straight and still be a member of the pride community.  The rainbow has absolutely nothing to do with sex, it has to do with pride and anti-discrimination.

ETA:  Really?  This had to be my 500th post?  Damn.

I understand the truth underlying what you say.  But "the rainbow has absoutely nothing to do with sex" is simply false.  People are not disqualified from jobs, adoption rights, etc. because of the attractions they feel inside their own minds.  Nor does society have a problem with people of the same sex living together, being devoted or loving toward each other, spending time together, or whatever (they're called roommates, relatives, or friends, respectively).  It's only when that relationship becomes sexual in nature that the real discrimination begins.  While it may be true that being gay is more than just sex (such as associated gender roles, social identity, etc.), it's crazy talk to say that it's simply not about sex.

I agree with Kacie Jane regarding the above. 

It is quite possible to be celibate and gay.  Or celibate and straight.  Or celibate and bisexual. 

Even celibate gay people have been discriminated against.    And fighting back against that discrimination is what the rainbow colors and the rest of it are about.  At least that's how I see it.

[cpzilliacus]

Enquiring minds still want to know:  Why are 'the politics of this' and 'MUTCD' even in the same sentence?

Because presumably West Hollywood is run by politicians, like most municipalities, and presumably they are supposed to be subject to the MUTCD, like the rest of the United States.