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

[agentsteel53]

inquiring minds want to know, why the hangup about sex?  how does it better us as a society to be tittery and weird and avoidant? 

while small children certainly shouldn't be having it, it should be explained to them as being a normal lifestyle choice they may to take part in when their maturity level enables them to approach it in a healthy manner.

kinda like alcohol... oh wait, fuck, we're assholes about that too, as evidenced by the 16 year olds drinking themselves into a stupor because it's forbidden.

maybe we should treat sex like taxes.  "it's just something we do."  (okay, hopefully more often than once a year!) 

no rebellious teen is gonna fill out a 1040.

[kphoger]

it should be explained to them as being a normal lifestyle choice they may to take part in when their maturity level enables them to approach it in a healthy manner.

But this is not what I would teach my child about sex.  Surely you could have guessed that.  I, like 38% of Americans, do not believe that sex outside of marriage is morally acceptable; why, then, would I teach my child what you suggest?

kinda like alcohol... oh wait, fuck, we're assholes about that too, as evidenced by the 16 year olds drinking themselves into a stupor because it's forbidden.

maybe we should treat sex like taxes.  "it's just something we do."  (okay, hopefully more often than once a year!) 

No, sorry, I cannot lump sex together with taxes and what people drink.  There's a fundamental difference.  Sex is more than just something we do, any more than love is just an emotion we feel.  Sex is fundamental to human nature in a way that nothing else is, and I could never in good conscience teach my children otherwise.

That's why a rainbow crosswalk, to me, is more than just advocating equal rights.  To me, it is advocating moral equality, and that is a realm I firmly believe the government should stay out of.

[NE2]

I know what you mean. The paint is forcing us to accept the equivalence of zebras and cartoon ponies.

[agentsteel53]

38% of Americans, do not believe that sex outside of marriage is morally acceptable;

a more realistic question is: how many percent of Americans have had sex outside of marriage?

[kphoger]

38% of Americans, do not believe that sex outside of marriage is morally acceptable;

a more realistic question is: how many percent of Americans have had sex outside of marriage?

That's a very good point.  It would also be interesting to see a breakdown by age group.

Count me as one who has had sex before marriage, is currently married, and still believes that sex outside of marriage is wrong–due in part to my own experience.  Count my wife as another, whose history is nearly the same as mine–except that she never had a child out of wedlock, whereas I have a 12-year-old daughter (now legally and realistically the child of her stepfather) in the Chicago suburbs.

....and now we've totally lost track of the the topic.....

[empirestate]

That's why a rainbow crosswalk, to me, is more than just advocating equal rights.  To me, it is advocating moral equality, and that is a realm I firmly believe the government should stay out of.

In a way, that's exactly the point. The rainbow symbol celebrates people's right to practice diverse lifestyles without oversight of government (along with other societal judgements). So, by employing the rainbow, the government of West Hollywood is indeed affirming its duty as a government to be permissive of these lifestyles. It is akin to displaying any of the various symbols of liberty and freedom we see so frequently at public and private locations around the nation.

That there's an element of sex is unquestionable, just as there's an element of sex in any celebration of parenthood, or of religious family principles. But we don't consider them explicitly when we celebrate these things, and they are not what the rainbow symbolizes. When we advocate for second amendment rights, we're referring to our right to protect ourselves with weapons; the second amendment isn't about the pathological details of how a bullet creates injury or death. And when we go to a wedding in a church, we don't feel the need to explain to the children present what the newlywed couple is now anatomically permitted to do in the church's eyes.

So if you ever need to explain the rainbow to children (who will probably be more interested in it as just a bunch of pretty colors anyhow), just say that it means people have the right to live their lives as the people they are, as long as it doesn't hurt anyone.

[agentsteel53]

Count me as one who has had sex before marriage, is currently married, and still believes that sex outside of marriage is wrong

therefore, by your own logic, if homosexuals aren't allowed to marry, then they should not ever be having sex.

doesn't that seem just a little bit cruel to you?

[bugo]

it should be explained to them as being a normal lifestyle choice they may to take part in when their maturity level enables them to approach it in a healthy manner.

But this is not what I would teach my child about sex.  Surely you could have guessed that.  I, like 38% of Americans, do not believe that sex outside of marriage is morally acceptable; why, then, would I teach my child what you suggest?

I hope you don't teach them to be bigots like you are.

[intelati49]

it should be explained to them as being a normal lifestyle choice they may to take part in when their maturity level enables them to approach it in a healthy manner.

But this is not what I would teach my child about sex.  Surely you could have guessed that.  I, like 38% of Americans, do not believe that sex outside of marriage is morally acceptable; why, then, would I teach my child what you suggest?

I hope you don't teach them to be bigots like you are.

Whoa guys, put down the sticks and play nicely please?

[Kacie Jane]

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.

And again, no.  You're simply wrong.

Since I've recently told two people this through PM, I might as well tell the rest of you.  I am male -- Kacie Jane bears no resemblance to my actual name.

Allow me to tell you something else.  I am bisexual.  I know this because Jude Law is by far the most attractive person in The Holiday -- among other reasons.  I know this despite being in a monogamous relationship with my wife whom I adore.  And I know this despite never having had sex with another man, although I have kissed one.

If I were to come out at work, no one would give two shits because I live and work in a liberal college town and because I work at a very friendly place with competent managers and HR and strict anti-discrimination policies.  However, if I lived in Podunk, Red State, this would not be the case.  There are still places where I would be fired on the spot.

There are schools (fortunately not ones that I have attended) where if I'd worn a rainbow shirt to school, I would have been suspended for 3 days.

I would have been a victim of "real discrimination" despite not having had a relationship that became sexual in nature.

Discrimination isn't about what goes on in the bedroom.  It's about idiots making idiotic assumptions.

[bugo]

it should be explained to them as being a normal lifestyle choice they may to take part in when their maturity level enables them to approach it in a healthy manner.

But this is not what I would teach my child about sex.  Surely you could have guessed that.  I, like 38% of Americans, do not believe that sex outside of marriage is morally acceptable; why, then, would I teach my child what you suggest?

I hope you don't teach them to be bigots like you are.

Whoa guys, put down the sticks and play nicely please?

If it quacks and waddles like a duck, then it's probably a duck.  I'm not going to hold back on speaking the truth just because it might make somebody uncomfortable.

[rickmastfan67]

Ok guys, please get back on topic about the MUTCD points about this crosswalk.  We don't need all this bashing of other people here as it's also getting a little too political for my tastes in here.  Thanks.

[intelati49]

Ok guys, please get back on topic about the MUTCD points about this crosswalk.  We don't need all this bashing of other people here as it's also getting a little too political for my tastes in here.  Thanks.

About an hour too late in my book.

[rickmastfan67]

Ok guys, please get back on topic about the MUTCD points about this crosswalk.  We don't need all this bashing of other people here as it's also getting a little too political for my tastes in here.  Thanks.

About an hour too late in my book.

Couldn't help it.  Wasn't on my computer till now.

[bugo]

So you're saying it's OK to promote bigotry on here, but it's not OK to call somebody out on it?  Seems your priorities are backwards.

[agentsteel53]

So you're saying it's OK to promote bigotry on here, but it's not OK to call somebody out on it?  Seems your priorities are backwards.

let's just agree to stop feeding the troll.

kphoger, please quit trolling.

[empirestate]

Actually I was pleasantly surprised that it went so well for so long. 

[rickmastfan67]

So you're saying it's OK to promote bigotry on here, but it's not OK to call somebody out on it?  Seems your priorities are backwards.

I never said that bugo.  I said we don't need to bash other people here.  I don't care if you're straight or gay, we shouldn't let a thread go into bashing each other for their personal preference.  Also, we do have to remember that some members here are under 14.  So, unless this thread gets back on topic now, I'll just lock it and/or just delete everything except the first post and then re-open it with a strong warning.  If we can't all discuss the topic on hand without getting into homophobia or hate speech, then it just might be best to eliminate this thread completely.

[bugo]

Threads like these are useful because you can see a person's true colors.  Many posters in this thread have proven themselves to be open minded and some have proven the opposite.  I'll stay out of it from here on out, but I stand by what I said.

[NE2]

Whoa guys, put down the lorries and play nicely please?

Fixed for you.

[intelati49]

Whoa guys, put down the bundles of sticks and play nicely please?

Fixed for you.

slow

[hbelkins]

Wonder if the various colors of paint will meet reflectivity standards? Or how long it will hold up under constant vehicular traffic?

[Duke87]

One would expect the red to fade over the years.

[empirestate]

And for that matter, what are some other examples of "novelty" pavement marking like this? I mentioned lilac-themed crosswalks in Rochester and some green or red-white-blue centerlines; what else? 

[NE2]

Green bike lanes to attempt to mitigate shitty design (e.g. bike lane to right of right turn lane).