Maybe I can keep from getting flamed if I preface this with a    :-)
 
Poor Dan H probably thought by cautioning us to keep our minds clean he
could limit replies to those from people who actually wanted roommates.
 
Now, Dan W comes along and makes it a gay/straight issue.  Well, I think
it's more: an assumption that same-sex roommates can control themselves,
but that whenever a man and woman are in the same room, nature takes a
predetermined course.
 
While I might be reluctant to share a room with a total stranger of the
opposite sex, and I might not be trustworthy if I had to share a bed, as
long as we have separate beds and a door on the bathroom, I'd share a room
with a colleague of any gender or sexual orientation.  I am confident that
the same social/professional constraints would operate to keep any of us,
gay or straight, from taking advantage of an unwilling roommate.
 
And I'm willing to flaunt convention to save 40 bucks.
 
end :-)
 
Now, :-|
 
I disagree with Pat that offensive innocent remarks should be responded to
privately.  Since most of us, on occasion, make those remarks, a polite
public response to one of us may serve to remind the rest of us that we do
need to be aware of the harm we can cause.  Our language reflects many
outdated conceptions.  Even though we may protest agains bias, as long as
it exists in our conversation, we cannot claim to have eliminated it.
 
Dan H's innocent comment may have inhibited some of the sexists who were
inevitably poised to make lewd comments about the roommate seeker.  He
could have avoided this whole thing by simply reporting that he had a
"request for a roommate."  Eventually, we'll all (or most of us, anyway)
learn.
 
Joan Kritzberg