# For God's sake, let the guy take his boyfriend to the prom!

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-gods-sake-let-the-guy-take-his-boyfriend-to-the-prom/103228>\
**Category:** Great Debates\
**Created:** [April 12, 2002, 1:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-gods-sake-let-the-guy-take-his-boyfriend-to-the-prom/103228 "2002-04-12T13:50:50Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 20\
**Page:** 11

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![The\_Ryan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7feea3/32.png) [@The\_Ryan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Ryan)\
**Post date:** [May 9, 2002, 11:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-gods-sake-let-the-guy-take-his-boyfriend-to-the-prom/103228/201 "2002-05-09T23:08:27Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Phoenix Dragon \*  
> Yes I have. It IS NOT DISCRIMINATION in the legal sense. In the US, there are certain conditions that have to be met. These vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but generally include things like race, religion, age, gender, ethnic origin, etc. If it does not fit the criteria layed out in the law, it isn’t discrimination.

Those are conditions that must be met for it to be illegal discrimination. They are not conditions that have to be met for it to be discrimination.

> [@](#):
>
> A rule that has absolutely nothing to do with the laws of society.

So if the government were prohibitting him, that would be okay?

> [@](#):
>
> Where did you get that idea?

From this:

> [@](#):
>
> As for right-versus-wrong, it seems pretty wrong to me to deny someone their choice in date because you believe their lifestyle to be evil, and no other reason

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![The\_Ryan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7feea3/32.png) [@The\_Ryan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Ryan)\
**Post date:** [May 9, 2002, 11:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-gods-sake-let-the-guy-take-his-boyfriend-to-the-prom/103228/202 "2002-05-09T23:30:42Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Jerevan Somerville \*  
> The school is barring him (in their own words as reported by **Northern Piper** , and re-emphasized by you, on Page 3 of this thread) because of what they consider _homosexual conduct_.

I don’t believe that has been established.

> [@](#):
>
> Incidentally, this is why the common outcry against “special rights for gays” is specious. A law which bans discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is _not_ the same as a law which grants particular privileges to someone who is homosexual.

But presumably the amount that the law would be invoked in favor of homosexuals would be vastly greater than the amount that it would be invoked in favor of heterosexuals, as the amount that the “no same sex dates” would be invoked to the detriment of homosexuals would be greater than the amount that it would be invoked to the detriment of heterosexuals. If the latter is discrimination because it disproportionately impacts homosexuals, isn’t the former discrimination as well?

> [@](#):
>
> No, as was cited above, the school is barring him from bringing a male date because they consider this **homosexual conduct** , _not_ because the school has a standing rule against same-sex dating.

As I have said before, I don’t believe this claim to be adequately supported.

> [@](#):
>
> Because of the commonly held _definition_ of what discrimination is: _treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit_. Treatment/consideration of those who break laws _is_ based on individual merit

So are all laws inherently nondiscriminatory? Would a law against two men holding hands in public be nondiscriminatory, because every man who holds another man’s hand in public is a lawbreaker, and therefore treating him differently is based on individual merit?

> [@](#):
>
> But they are inseparable, in your estimation. You have already defined _homosexual conduct_ as _anything that a person of homosexual orientation does_

No, I haven’t. I said that **some people consider it to mean that**.

> [@](#):
>
> As far as I am aware, you have not indicated that you think a heterosexual person is capable of homosexual conduct.

A heterosexual is capable of homosexual conduct, in the sense of conduct that is homosexual.

> [@](#):
>
> (“Many”? _Really_? Cite, please?)

The impression that I got from [this thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=105098&highlight=coulter) was that people considered the aforementioned definition to be correct.

> [@](#):
>
> It is not even a practical one,

I agree. If you look at the linked thread, you will see that I opposed that interpretation. and yet many people insisted that I was bigoted/inflammatory/whatever for ignoring it. I did not wish to have that repeated here, so I mentioned the alternative interpretation.

> [@](#):
>
> In the sense that by its very nature, the definition of a word or term is a matter of consensus, yes.

Well, yes. But “the consensus is that ‘discrimination’ includes this policy” seems a bit preemptory to me.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Jerevan\_Somerville](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/c37758/32.png) [@Jerevan\_Somerville](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jerevan_Somerville)\
**Post date:** [May 10, 2002, 1:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-gods-sake-let-the-guy-take-his-boyfriend-to-the-prom/103228/203 "2002-05-10T01:20:57Z")

</div>

**Esprix** : Oh, don’t be like that. Imitation is the highest form of flattery, don’t you know that? 😃

> [@](#):
>
> _Originally posted by The Ryan_  
> I don’t believe that has been established.

I believe it has… and so did you, at one time, back on Page 3. Given that you did so, I am not going to debate this particular point with you any longer.

> [@](#):
>
> But presumably the amount that the law would be invoked in favor of homosexuals would be vastly greater than the amount that it would be invoked in favor of heterosexuals, as the amount that the “no same sex dates” would be invoked to the detriment of homosexuals would be greater than the amount that it would be invoked to the detriment of heterosexuals. If the latter is discrimination because it disproportionately impacts homosexuals, isn’t the former discrimination as well?

No. Law which forbids discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation protects everyone equally, in the sense that everyone has an equal right to that protection under the law. The number of people in one group who “benefit” from the law vs. another group is immaterial. Do you consider that laws which ban discrimination on the basis of race discriminate against white people? If so, how? Do you think it is impossible for a homosexual man to discriminate against you just because you are (I presume) heterosexual? Would you not be outraged if that happened, and expect the law to offer you means for redress? Shouldn’t a homosexual be offered the same means?

> [@](#):
>
> So are all laws inherently nondiscriminatory? Would a law against two men holding hands in public be nondiscriminatory, because every man who holds another man’s hand in public is a lawbreaker, and therefore treating him differently is based on individual merit?

I did not say _laws_ could never be discriminatory. Laws can be and often have been discriminatory. Laws in England which forbade Catholics to hold high office after the Reformation were discriminatory. What I _did_ say (and as with everything else, I suggest you go back and re-read it) was that the _treatment_ which people who break laws receive is on the basis of individual merit – the fact that they broke laws. Whether the law itself is discriminatory, and the consequential treatment for breaking it is justifiable, are different matters. Ever heard of Civil Disobedience?

> [@](#):
>
> No, I haven’t [said that I accept the following definition]. I said that **some people consider it to mean that** [homosexual conduct is any conduct in which a homosexual person engages]

{Sorry for all the filler, but things are getting rather disjointed without it.}

The second time yes, you did indicate that _many other people_ used this definition. However, the first time – in answer to my question about how _you_, not many other people, define “homosexual conduct” – you offered the foregoing as one of two definitions. This now gives you the appearance, however unintentional, of backing off a definition which has proved unworkable or inconvenient to your argument.

> [@](#):
>
> A heterosexual is capable of homosexual conduct, in the sense of conduct that is homosexual.
> 
> The impression that I got from [this previously cited thread] was that people considered the aforementioned definition to be correct … If you look at the linked thread, you will see that I opposed that interpretation. and yet many people insisted that I was bigoted/inflammatory/whatever for ignoring it.

I looked at this thread. I think the key point which you missed – go back and re-read what **Spiritus Mundi** and **Polycarp** said in response to you – is that _pedophilia_ is not considered _homosexual_ conduct because it has been demonstrated that male pedophiles are not disproportionately gay relative to the larger, law-abiding population. _Pedophilia_ is the abuse of children through sex, but it is not about sexual attraction; it is about power over the innocent, the weak, the helpless. _Homosexuality_ is about sexual attractions or inclination towards person of the same sex. They are not the same, and anyone who tells you otherwise is flat-out wrong.

Personally, I do not think an entirely heterosexual person is capable of engaging – willingly – in homosexual conduct, as I have defined the term previously. A person who engages in homosexual conduct is, to some degree, homosexual.

> [@](#):
>
> Well, yes. But “the consensus is that ‘discrimination’ includes this policy” seems a bit preemptory to me.

You’re entitled to think so, of course, and bow out. I have tried to look at **Phoenix Dragon** ’s remarks from your point of view and find nothing objectionable in them.

What I do find objectionable, however, is that I have repeatedly referred you to other posts on this thread, given you definitions and pointed you to external sources of information which you do not seem to have read – nor, I must say, do you seem especially hampered by consistency. Until these two aspects of your debating style change, I see no point in continuing the discussion.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Esprix](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/esprix/32/7899_2.png) [@Esprix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Esprix)\
**Post date:** [May 10, 2002, 6:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-gods-sake-let-the-guy-take-his-boyfriend-to-the-prom/103228/204 "2002-05-10T06:50:04Z")

</div>

**The Ryan** doesn’t read links - didn’t you know that? They might prove him wrong.

I’d link to where he said it, but he wouldn’t read it. 😃

Esprix

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Jerevan\_Somerville](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/c37758/32.png) [@Jerevan\_Somerville](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jerevan_Somerville)\
**Post date:** [May 10, 2002, 11:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-gods-sake-let-the-guy-take-his-boyfriend-to-the-prom/103228/205 "2002-05-10T11:53:34Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Esprix \*  
> \*\ ***The Ryan** doesn’t read links - didn’t you know that? They might prove him wrong.

“I don’t believe that has been established.” 😛

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![DMC](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dmc/32/18049_2.png) [@DMC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DMC)\
**Post date:** [May 10, 2002, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-gods-sake-let-the-guy-take-his-boyfriend-to-the-prom/103228/206 "2002-05-10T18:24:34Z")

</div>

[Guess who’s going to the prom?](http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1021025154404&call_page=TS_News&call_pageid=968332188492&call_pagepath=News/News&col=968793972154)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Mars\_Horizon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mars_horizon/32/2804_2.png) [@Mars\_Horizon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mars_Horizon)\
**Post date:** [May 10, 2002, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-gods-sake-let-the-guy-take-his-boyfriend-to-the-prom/103228/207 "2002-05-10T18:36:36Z")

</div>

Well, isnt that a nice turn of events? Whoda thunk it?

Win one for the good guys.

I hope they have fun at the prom.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Esprix](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/esprix/32/7899_2.png) [@Esprix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Esprix)\
**Post date:** [May 10, 2002, 7:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-gods-sake-let-the-guy-take-his-boyfriend-to-the-prom/103228/208 "2002-05-10T19:22:10Z")

</div>

I suppose **The Ryan** will say this proves it wasn’t discrimination because the school let them go to the prom. :rolleyes:

Esprix

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Esprix](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/esprix/32/7899_2.png) [@Esprix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Esprix)\
**Post date:** [May 10, 2002, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-gods-sake-let-the-guy-take-his-boyfriend-to-the-prom/103228/209 "2002-05-10T19:40:48Z")

</div>

From the article linked above:

> [@](#):
>
> “Marc Hall is a Roman Catholic Canadian trying to be himself. He is gay. It’s not an answer to Section 15 Charter rights on these facts to deny permission to attend a school function…”

So Canada’s Section 15 Charter, and the fact that the school is publicly funded, trump the RCC.

> [@](#):
>
> Hall’s lawyer David Corbett said the ruling tells Catholic schools “you can’t disciminate on the basis of sexual orientation…”
> 
> Roger Hutchinson, a professor emeritus of theology at the University of Toronto… said [the decision] would send a strong message that gay people have basic human rights that must be protected by public institutions.
> 
> “It will make all Catholic schools think twice before they make anti-gay decisions…”

Here’s the part that might interest **The Ryan** :

> [@](#):
>
> … Peter Lauwers, a lawyer for the Durham Catholic School Board… said while the school board accepts gay people, they can’t condone or allow homosexual behaviour at a school function.

As we’ve said all along, we’ve always understood the whole “orientation/behavior” point. However:

> [@](#):
>
> Hall’s lawyer David Corbett argued the board violated the Ontario Human Rights Code, the Education Act and the provincial Code of Conduct, which all bar discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation.
> 
> Corbett argued the church’s right to consider religious values when regulating students’ conduct doesn’t trump Hall’s human rights…

… and it seems the Court agreed. The weasly argument of, “it’s not anti-gay - we’re just banning the _behavior_” was rejected just as we’ve been rejecting it from you. It’s as specious as “love the sinner, hate the sin,” and that horse was beaten to death long ago on this board.

I cannot wait for **The Ryan** ’s response to the decision.

Esprix

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Jerevan\_Somerville](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/c37758/32.png) [@Jerevan\_Somerville](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jerevan_Somerville)\
**Post date:** [May 10, 2002, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-gods-sake-let-the-guy-take-his-boyfriend-to-the-prom/103228/210 "2002-05-10T19:57:54Z")

</div>

“Nothing has been established because Marc and his boyfriend have not yet gone to the prom.” 😃

Good for them! And for us. I can’t but feel vindicated.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![scott\_evil](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/91b2a8/32.png) [@scott\_evil](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scott_evil)\
**Post date:** [May 10, 2002, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-gods-sake-let-the-guy-take-his-boyfriend-to-the-prom/103228/211 "2002-05-10T19:58:16Z")

</div>

Jesus Christ, can we now let this GD die? The courts did what they had to do, and IMO, it was the right thing.

An aside, though…

The article in question mentioned that no one would do this 10 or 15 years ago. Well, I didn’t attend my prom, mainly because I was afraid of being gay-bashed by drunken jocks. However, the queer contingent of my high school (consisting of me, my boyfriend, a few lesbians, some bi-chycks, and all of those who were our supporters) made it quite clear to the administration that we would not put up with homophobic crap. When people were running for student council, one asshole put up a sign saying “Vote for [whoever] - he’s not a fag!” We ripped it down, brought it to the vice-principal, and told him this was unacceptable. The candidate was then barred from running.

I lived half of my high school years out. It was surprisingly easy, given it was the late 80s, when young guys didn’t come out in numbers as they do now. (I envy - and respect - them.) Then I found a boyfriend, and everyone knew we were an item.

My hope is that all those who knew me and Ryan will understand if and when their kids come out as gay, lesbian, or whatever. They saw a stable, happy couple - two guys in love, afraid, but still brave. So they’ll know that it’s OK for their kid to be gay, because scott was, and Ryan was, and they both turned out pretty damned good.

BTW Even though we broke up 10 years ago (I think to this date, actually), Ryan is my best friend, and takes care of me whenever I need it. I reciprocate. For that, I am grateful. 🙂

- s.e.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\
**Post date:** [May 10, 2002, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-gods-sake-let-the-guy-take-his-boyfriend-to-the-prom/103228/212 "2002-05-10T20:06:19Z")

</div>

**Scott** , think of this as your “baptism of fire” in how the Great Debaters will latch onto an issue like pitbulls and keep at it until the horse expires (and may not stop then).

:::Wonders if **pepperlandgirl** is still around:::: 😉

But in view of your last post, we can now understand why you’ve been trying to calm **Esprix** down on the issue of apparently contradictory posts. You should not have mentioned his name! 😉

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![scott\_evil](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/91b2a8/32.png) [@scott\_evil](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scott_evil)\
**Post date:** [May 10, 2002, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-gods-sake-let-the-guy-take-his-boyfriend-to-the-prom/103228/213 "2002-05-10T20:38:46Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Polycarp \*  
> [B[But in view of your last post, we can now understand why you’ve been trying to calm **Esprix** down on the issue of apparently contradictory posts. You should not have mentioned his name! 😉 \*\*

Whose name? Are you talking about my ex-boyfriend (now my best friend) Ryan vesus **The Ryan**? Maybe it’s the painkillers but I don’t get it right now… Check my sig line and you’ll know why. 😃

- s.e.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![DocCathode](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/doccathode/32/18773_2.png) [@DocCathode](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DocCathode)\
**Post date:** [May 10, 2002, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-gods-sake-let-the-guy-take-his-boyfriend-to-the-prom/103228/214 "2002-05-10T20:50:59Z")

</div>

I say keep it alive so we can all rejoice in the court’s ruling.

```
 Maybe later on I'll do my usual "God loves us all. If he didn't want people to be gay, he'd stop making gay people. ". I haven't done it lately on the SDMB and IRL, I make a rather unconvincing messenger of the Lord.
```

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Esprix](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/esprix/32/7899_2.png) [@Esprix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Esprix)\
**Post date:** [May 10, 2002, 9:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-gods-sake-let-the-guy-take-his-boyfriend-to-the-prom/103228/215 "2002-05-10T21:32:43Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> _Originally posted by **Jerevan Somerville** _
> 
> **The Ryan** : Nothing has been established because Marc and his boyfriend have not yet gone to the prom.

The Teeming Millions: But there’s a picture on the site that shows them holding hands and it says, “Here they are going to the prom.”

**The Ryan** : I don’t read cites. The news media are only _reporting_ that they went to the prom - we don’t know that they actually did it, that the picture is accurate, that the caption is true, that it’s even a picture of the people in question. Were you there? Did you see it first-hand? Why would you assume I would say that? You’re intentionally misrepresenting me. Cite? I refuse to debate you anymore until you answer my questions and debate this issue logically, just like me.

The Teeming Millions: :rolleyes:

Esprix

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![The\_Ryan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7feea3/32.png) [@The\_Ryan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Ryan)\
**Post date:** [May 10, 2002, 10:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-gods-sake-let-the-guy-take-his-boyfriend-to-the-prom/103228/216 "2002-05-10T22:27:11Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Jerevan Somerville \*  
> I believe it has… and so did you, at one time, back on Page 3.

When did I say that?

> [@](#):
>
> The number of people in one group who “benefit” from the law vs. another group is immaterial.

But according to you, the fact that more homosexuals are hurt by the no same-sex partners rule than heterosexuals means that it is discriminatory. So why does that suddenly becomes irrelevant when it’s a rule you like?

> [@](#):
>
> Do you consider that laws which ban discrimination on the basis of race discriminate against white people?

According to the logc being used against this policy, yes. According to my own logic, no.

> [@](#):
>
> I did not say _laws_ could never be discriminatory. Laws can be and often have been discriminatory…What I _did_ say (and as with everything else, I suggest you go back and re-read it) was that the _treatment_ which people who break laws receive is on the basis of individual merit – the fact that they broke laws.

You said

> [@](#):
>
> Hmmm, I see your point about the intrinsic relationship. But under the definition above, I am inclined to say that we judge a murderer on his/her individual merit – that is, on the basis that each murderer has broken a particular law.

So in this quote, were you just saying that the treatment of murderers is nondiscrimatory? If so, is the **law** against murder discriminatory?

> [@](#):
>
> I looked at this thread. I think the key point which you missed – go back and re-read what **Spiritus Mundi** and **Polycarp** said in response to you – is that _pedophilia_ is not considered _homosexual_ conduct because it has been demonstrated that male pedophiles are not disproportionately gay relative to the larger, law-abiding population.

I honestly do not understand how anyone could conclude that I missed that.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Jerevan\_Somerville](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/c37758/32.png) [@Jerevan\_Somerville](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jerevan_Somerville)\
**Post date:** [May 11, 2002, 1:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-gods-sake-let-the-guy-take-his-boyfriend-to-the-prom/103228/217 "2002-05-11T01:50:11Z")

</div>

_on behalf of **Esprix** , Marc and the Teeming Millions_  
_ **"Once more into the breach, dear friends…"** _

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by The Ryan \*  
> When did I say that [the school did not wish to encourage _homosexual conduct_]?

I told you that I don’t believe there is a need to debate this point further. Go back on read your own words on Page 3 of this thread.

> [@](#):
>
> But according to you, the fact that more homosexuals are hurt by the no same-sex partners rule than heterosexuals means that it is discriminatory. So why does that suddenly becomes irrelevant when it’s a rule you like?

I have not invoked the alleged “same-sex partner rule” in support of anything I have said. You invented this rule all by your lonesome – that’s why I don’t like it. I have consistently maintained that the school’s _acknowledged_ treatment of Marc because of his homosexual conduct constitutes illegal discrimination against his homosexual orientation as defined in law, and agreed upon by the Canadian court.

> [@](#):
>
> According to the logc being used against this policy, yes. According to my own logic, no.

:::blinking, cigarette in hand, _a la_ Edina Monsoon:::

“According to your _what_, sweetie?” 😕

> [@](#):
>
> **Jerevan** : … under the definition [of discrimination] above, I am inclined to say that we judge a murderer on his/her individual merit – that is, on the basis that each murderer has broken a particular law.
> 
> **The Ryan** : So in this quote, were you just saying that the treatment of murderers is nondiscrimatory? If so, is the **law** against murder discriminatory?

Yes. No. Go back and read my previous posts. I don’t believe that your questions here establish anything new.

> [@](#):
>
> I honestly do not understand how anyone could conclude that I missed that.

Well, forgive me for being blunt at this late hour, but doesn’t exactly come as a shock. You seem to have missed a great deal of what has been put right in front of you. God help me, but I’ve done my part to help drag you into the 21st century. The rest is now up to you.

_[to **Esprix** , **scott\_evil** and the other Teemings]_

_Au revoir, mes amis. A toute a l’heure._

Jerevan Somerville

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Esprix](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/esprix/32/7899_2.png) [@Esprix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Esprix)\
**Post date:** [May 11, 2002, 3:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-gods-sake-let-the-guy-take-his-boyfriend-to-the-prom/103228/218 "2002-05-11T03:14:16Z")

</div>

_{removes hat, places on chest}_

Aye, that **Jerevan** was a blessed soul, 'e was…

Esprix

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![scott\_evil](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/91b2a8/32.png) [@scott\_evil](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scott_evil)\
**Post date:** [May 11, 2002, 3:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-gods-sake-let-the-guy-take-his-boyfriend-to-the-prom/103228/219 "2002-05-11T03:27:17Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Jerevan Somerville \*  
> :::blinking, cigarette in hand, _a la_ Edina Monsoon:::
> 
> “According to your _what_, sweetie?” 😕

An AbFab reference will win the way to my heart, dear.

Anyway, he won, he got to go to his prom with his boyfriend, most other students supported him, and the judge’s ruling was clear (just about everything I’ve been saying all along - I rephrase):

In essence, the judge ruled that an institution that accepts public funding **cannot** override the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Ontario Human Rights Code, even if it’s a religious institution. You want to discriminate? Get your funding elsewhere.

The boy has done what I did at the same age: Say “I’m gay, are you going to do something to me? Like ban me from my own prom?” I didn’t go to my prom for reasons I’ve already explained.

He’s lucky he’s growing up, and coming out, now, as opposed to 15 years ago when I was. I’m terribly sorry, **TheRyan** , but things are changing exponentially, and you can’t stop it.

We won. Case closed. 🙂

- s.e.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![The\_Ryan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7feea3/32.png) [@The\_Ryan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Ryan)\
**Post date:** [May 11, 2002, 6:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-gods-sake-let-the-guy-take-his-boyfriend-to-the-prom/103228/220 "2002-05-11T06:25:07Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Jerevan Somerville \*  
> I told you that I don’t believe there is a need to debate this point further. Go back on read your own words on Page 3 of this thread.

I think that if you’re going to tell me what I said, common decency demands that you back up your statement. Furthermore, your continued debating while ducking behind the “I’m not debating anymore” shield every time you don’t have an answer is dishonest.

> [@](#):
>
> Well, forgive me for being blunt at this late hour,

No, you’re not being blunt. Blunt would be actually answering my question. You seem to be confused about what the difference between “blunt” and “just plain rude” is.

> [@](#):
>
> You seem to have missed a great deal of what has been put right in front of you.

I aksed an earnest question. You refused to answer it. Seems to me that I’m not missing what’s put in front of me, because nothing is being put in front of me. Instead it’s “look at page three” and “Go back and read my previous posts”. You don’t want to answer my questions, fine. But to refuse to answer my questions, and then pretend that I’m missing something is dishonest.

[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-gods-sake-let-the-guy-take-his-boyfriend-to-the-prom/103228.md?page=10)

[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-gods-sake-let-the-guy-take-his-boyfriend-to-the-prom/103228.md?page=12)