# For God's sake, let the guy take his boyfriend to the prom! **URL:** \ **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:** 8
**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 1, 2002, 9:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-gods-sake-let-the-guy-take-his-boyfriend-to-the-prom/103228/141 "2002-05-01T21:54:30Z")
**The Ryan** , do you believe that this rule will adversely affect heterosexuals attending the prom who bring a date of their choice (keeping in mind that the vast majority of heterosexuals’ date of choice will be a member of the opposite sex)? Do you believe this rule will adversely affect homosexuals attending the prom who bring a date of their choice (keeping in mind that the vast majority of homosexuals’ date of choice will be a member of the same sex)? Esprix ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2002, 10:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-gods-sake-let-the-guy-take-his-boyfriend-to-the-prom/103228/142 "2002-05-01T22:10:49Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by The Ryan \* > \*\* > It’s a silly rule which the school, as a private institution, has every right to make. \*\* As has been very patiently explained, again and again and again, the school (and the school board) are not private institutions. It is a public institution, funded by the taxpayer, run by the government, subject to government rules. I’m curious as to how much attention you’ve been paying to other people’s posts if you managed to miss this rather crucial fact. ---
**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 1, 2002, 10:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-gods-sake-let-the-guy-take-his-boyfriend-to-the-prom/103228/143 "2002-05-01T22:33:09Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Polycarp \* > As was ably pointed out, the ruling against the individual in question was made _on the basis of his being gay_, not on the basis of his wanting to take a same-sex date with no reference to sexual orientation. That has not been proven. > [@](#): > > This school is being operated with public moneys to provide an education for the students of its faith, a valid governmental purpose. It is permitted to _teach_ its religious viewpoint, without reference to state laws that would otherwise forbid doing so. Aren’t policies against homosexuality of form of teaching their faith? > [@](#): > > Now do you see the line I’m drawing, and why I’ve been arguing with you on the points you’ve been making? You don’t seem to be doing anything but repeating points that I have already challenged. RickJay > [@](#): > > As has been very patiently explained, again and again and again, the school (and the school board) are not private institutions. It is a public institution, funded by the taxpayer, run by the government, subject to government rules. > > I’m curious as to how much attention you’ve been paying to other people’s posts if you managed to miss this rather crucial fact. I have not missed that **claim**. However, the fact that they receive public funding does not automatically mean they are a public institution. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2002, 10:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-gods-sake-let-the-guy-take-his-boyfriend-to-the-prom/103228/144 "2002-05-01T22:45:35Z")
> [@](#): > > That has not been proven. No, I suppose they may have made their decision on the basis that they don’t like the way his ears stick out, or because he didn’t ace his Math final. But it sure appears to be pretty clear from the OP, unless you want to invoke phi or the Devil Raccoons of Luna shooting mind rays to come up with alternative reasons they might have said what they are alleged to have said. > [@](#): > > Aren’t policies against homosexuality of form of teaching their faith? I’m surprised at _your_ saying this. “Homosexuality” is an abstract noun with specific meanings. There are specific things which the Catholic Church teaches are sinful that fall within the general ambit of those definitions, but I doubt strongly that the young man of the OP and his boyfriend are proposing to commit them in the middle of the prom dance floor. ---
**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 1, 2002, 11:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-gods-sake-let-the-guy-take-his-boyfriend-to-the-prom/103228/145 "2002-05-01T23:03:05Z")
No, no, no, **Polycarp** - any _reasonable_ person (read: **The Ryan** ) understands that “homosexuality” refers to any activity between any two men of any age - just like when a male pederast rapes a male child. ( :rolleyes: ) Just by dancing together - nay, being seen _in the same room_ together - they would obviously be engaging in “homosexual conduct,” because it would be two men. Don’t you see that? Do I have to explain it again? Esprix ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2002, 11:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-gods-sake-let-the-guy-take-his-boyfriend-to-the-prom/103228/146 "2002-05-01T23:54:24Z")
**Esprix:** _…do you believe that this rule will adversely affect heterosexuals attending the prom who bring a date of their choice (keeping in mind that the vast majority of heterosexuals’ date of choice will be a member of the opposite sex)?_ Actually, this gives me a great idea for a civil-disobedience tactic in schools that have such policies. Have the school’s chapter of Gay-Straight Alliance or some such gay-friendly group arrange “date swaps”, where male-female couples who were planning to attend the prom together exchange “official” partners so that boys attend with boys and girls with girls. (You can dance with whomever you want and take whomever you want out to the makeout party at Overlook Point afterwards, but you have to arrive at and leave the dance with your same-sex “date” and refer to him/her as your date for the prom.) What’s the school gonna do? Tell fifty or sixty students that they’re not allowed to attend (especially when the authorities know that most of them aren’t actually homosexual)? Heh-heh-heh. Kimstu (who still sort of regrets the fact that her state finally struck down its old homophobically-inspired law banning oral sex **before** she managed to organize a big protest group to go down to the police station and turn ourselves in for breaking it. I was going to call it the “Come Clean Campaign.” Heh-heh-heh. :)) ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2002, 1:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-gods-sake-let-the-guy-take-his-boyfriend-to-the-prom/103228/147 "2002-05-02T01:13:14Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by The Ryan \* > I have not missed that **claim**. However, the fact that they receive public funding does not automatically mean they are a public institution. \*\* Perhaps your definition of a “public institution” differs from mine, but I would think the government’s line of elementary and high schools is as public an institution as any. I realize you are not Canadian and thus I can forgive your ignorance in this matter, because our system is unique and does not have an American counterpart. Catholic schools in Ontario are not private schools in any way or any sense of the term. They are public schools. We basically have TWO public school systems; the “public” system, (which used to be called the Protestant system) and the “separate” system. Both are public school systems in exactly the same way your local public school system is. Both must accept all students that apply. Both are fully funded by provincial taxation and property taxes. Both must teach a standard provincially determined curriculum. Both must hire teachers in accordance with provincial qualification criteria. Both must uphold the same basic set of standards as outlined in the Education Act. They have equivalent grade structures, credit systems, and diplomas. Neither charges tuition. The one and only difference is that the separate school boards are allowed to teach Catholic doctrine in addition to teaching the government-required curriculum. In no way whatsoever could they POSSIBLY be defined as being a “private institution.” I have, in fact, explained why they are allowed to make this (obviously discriminatory) decision; because in Canada, some forms of discrimination are legal, and this is one of them. The Constitution specifically states that separate school boards may do this sort of thing, because that is quite literally why they were created. ---
**Author:** ![Phoenix\_Dragon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/65b543/32.png) [@Phoenix\_Dragon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Phoenix_Dragon)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2002, 1:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-gods-sake-let-the-guy-take-his-boyfriend-to-the-prom/103228/148 "2002-05-02T01:15:29Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by The Ryan \* > **But your original statement did not say anything about barring a date because of gender.** Um… Which statement, the one where you were talking about a hypothetical involving the date’s age? Why would I be replying about gender when it’s about age? Or are you talking about a different subject? And same-sex/opposite-sex both quite clearly refer to gender, anyway. > [@](#): > > **Because if you have to make up a new explanation for why is discrimination for every situation, that implies that there isn’t anything intrinsicly discriminatory to the general concept.** Oh, so if one can’t show it to be discrimination based on a certain condition, it’s automatically not discrimination for ALL conditions? Make up a new explanation? I mentioned gender discrimination _ **in my first post!** _ > [@](#): > > **Just because I don’t agree with it does not mean that I don’t understand it. They are not the same thing.** Nice, but you completely avoided addressing what I said in that quote, there. Let me repeat it for you: Discriminating against homosexual people _or_ homosexual activity is still discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Well? > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > It would if that were the case. However, NOTHING has been said about heterosexuals brining same-sex dates. > > me _big-ass snip_ This is one of the reasons I hate it when a discussion gets so cut-up like this, and people start seperating single paragraphs into three or four different quotes… That was in reference to the SCHOOL, not this THREAD, just as the rest of that paragraph was. > [@](#): > > **No, they made their decision because they “don’t want to allow homosexual conduct”. It’s rtight there, in your own words. "The school said very explicitly that the homosexual man was not to bring a date of the same sex because they don’t want to allow homosexual conduct. " Not “… because they don’t want to allow homosexuals” but because they don’t want to allow homosexual conduct.** I’m going to have to refer you to several quotes by _Northern Piper_, who has previously brought up references that you seem to have not addressed, but apply rather well here: > [@](#): > > **Gay acts 'contrary to natural law’** > by Joseph Brean > > The Durham separate school board’s decision that **homosexual dating** will not be allowed at this year’s graduation prom has the full support of the area’s archdiocese, which says the decision is in accord with Church doctrine. > > \ > > Suzanne Scorsone, a spokeswoman for the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Toronto, which includes the school, said taking a date to a prom is “exploration that will lead to a decision about marriage,” and thus subject to the Church’s unequivocal proscription of **homosexuality.** > [@](#): > > **How a Catholic family took on their Church** > by Sarah Schmidt > > The Durham Catholic District School Board upheld on Monday night the decision of the school principal banning Marc from taking his boyfriend. According to a board statement, the Church “does not condemn an individual for his or her sexual orientation. However, the behaviours associated with a **homosexual lifestyle** are not consistent with Church teachings and our values as a Catholic school system.” Both of which point out that the reason the boyfriend was not allowed to attend was because of his orientation, and that the school would not allow it because of that. So that makes it pretty clear: Heterosexual dating is allowed, homosexual dating is not. You say that they are not judging this on their orientation, but the acts associated with their orientation. That is discrimination. And the Supreme Court would agree. I’d like to point you to another of _Northern Piper’s_ (Good stuff you found there 🙂 ) references, regarding Brooks v. Canada Safeway, where it was ruled that discrimination based upon pregnancy was discrimination against women since only women can become pregnant. Similarly, discrimination based upon homosexual “activities” (Which seems like a rather odd way of saying "dating another guy) is discriminating against homosexuals because only homosexuals conduct “homosexual activites.” > [@](#): > > What you paraphrased is not the entirety of my argument, but I simply cannot fathom how you managed to paraphrase part of my argument without ever seeing my argument. If you really want to see all of my argument, then read all of my posts. It’s really that simple. But I think that this paragraph sums uup my position reasonably well: > > > [@](#): > > > > Perhaps my point would be more clear if we were to discuss specific people. Marc wants to take a man to the prom. Polycarp’s statement implies that the reason Marc can not take his date to the prom is because Marc is gay. But that is not the reason that Marc can’t take the date to the prom. The reason that Marc can’t take his date to the prom is because his date is a man. Granted, the fact that his date is a man is largely a consequence of his homosexuality, but his homosexuality has no proximate effect on whether he can take his date to the prom. I think that Polycarp sees the policy as singling Marc out as not being able to take his date to the prom, but I see Marc’s choice of a man for a date as being the reason. > > To put it more simply: no evidence has been presented to prove that Marc’s sexuality has anything to do with whom the school will allow to take to the prom. Therefore, the claim that the school is being discriminatory has no basis. See above. > [@](#): > > I took an EXACT QUOTE of your analogy, and replaced the specific references with brackets. An EXACT QUOTE. Oh yes. An exact quote. With some things changed. Right. I wasn’t saying that the part you quoted was wrong, it was the parts you _replaced_ that were wrong. Your variables did not match up with the tense and conditions of the original hypotheticals. Basically, you changed it so that they would be to your favor. > [@](#): > > **They don’t explicitly say that atheists/blacks/women aren’t allowed, but they do say that only theists/whites/men are allowed. Therefore, if your analogy is extended to this situation, it would say that only heterosexuals can attend. Which is simply not supported by evidence.** No, my hypothetical, extended to this situation would be that only heterosexual dating is allowed. Homosexuals would be allowed to bring their dates, but only if it were a heterosexual (male-female) dating. Or: Only behavior is allowed. [Y] people (Who conduct [Y] behavior and only [Y] behavior) would be allowed, but only if they conduct behavior. To once again use the atheist example: Only believers in god are allowed. Athiests would be allowed, but only if they are believers in god. As I showed above, discrimination against and act or behavior that is an intrinsic part of a condition is discrimination against that condition (Condition seems like a rather poor word in this sense, but the point should be clear). > [@](#): > > I think that it’s BLINDINGLY OBVIOUS that by saying that the school is not probihiting homosexuals from attending, I was saying that the school is not barring anyone on the basis of being homosexual, not that there are no homosexuals being barred from attending. Oh, that’s right. Insisting that words be interpreted logically is a “semantic game”. \*\* To use the quote above _again_: > [@](#): > > The Durham separate school board’s decision that homosexual dating will not be allowed at this year’s graduation prom has the full support of the area’s archdiocese, which says the decision is in accord with Church doctrine. The school refused to let the boyfriend attend because it would be homosexual dating, which is a behavior expressed because he is gay. The fact that the boyfriend is gay is the _root cause_ of him being refused admitance. And as the Brooks v. Canada Safeway case shows, the courts would agree. ---
**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 2, 2002, 6:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-gods-sake-let-the-guy-take-his-boyfriend-to-the-prom/103228/149 "2002-05-02T06:34:24Z")
What you’re missing, **Phoenix** , is that “homosexual” doesn’t actually mean homosexual to **The Ryan**. Er, no, wait - it does. Well, it means a lot more than that. Or not. Or something. Actually, no one’s really quite sure what he’s talking about. Esprix ---
**Author:** ![Phoenix\_Dragon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/65b543/32.png) [@Phoenix\_Dragon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Phoenix_Dragon)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2002, 4:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-gods-sake-let-the-guy-take-his-boyfriend-to-the-prom/103228/150 "2002-05-02T16:07:51Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Esprix \* > **Actually, no one’s really quite sure what he’s talking about.** Yep, I think you’re right… ---
**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 2, 2002, 4:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-gods-sake-let-the-guy-take-his-boyfriend-to-the-prom/103228/151 "2002-05-02T16:46:43Z")
And just to actually quote (again) from [the article referenced in the OP](http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2002/04/09/hall_prom020409): > [@](#): > > But the board ruled that it could not permit a gay couple to attend. Please note the phrase “gay couple.” Thank you. Esprix ---
**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 3, 2002, 8:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-gods-sake-let-the-guy-take-his-boyfriend-to-the-prom/103228/152 "2002-05-03T08:05:03Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Polycarp \* > No, I suppose they may have made their decision on the basis that they don’t like the way his ears stick out, or because he didn’t ace his Math final. But it sure appears to be pretty clear from the OP, unless you want to invoke phi or the Devil Raccoons of Luna shooting mind rays to come up with alternative reasons they might have said what they are alleged to have said. Let’s see… he wants to take someone of the same sex to the prom. They won’t let him, telling him that they don’t want to take someone of the same sex to the prom. Reasonable conculsion according to Ryan: the reason they wouldn’t allow him to take someone of the same sex is that they don’t like people taking people of the same sex to the prom. Reasonable conclusion according to everyone else: the reason they wouldn’t allow him to take someone of the same sex is not that they don’t like people taking people of the same sex to the prom. Seeing as how they actually **said** that they don’t like people taking someone of the same sex to the prom, and did **not** say that they are against just homosexuals taking someone of the same sex to the prom, how is the latter rweasonable, and the former not? > [@](#): > > I’m surprised at _your_ saying this. “Homosexuality” is an abstract noun with specific meanings. There are specific things which the Catholic Church teaches are sinful that fall within the general ambit of those definitions, but I doubt strongly that the young man of the OP and his boyfriend are proposing to commit them in the middle of the prom dance floor. Even if homosexual intercourse is not going to occur at the dance, that doesn’t mean that allowing same sex dating doesn’t encourage it. If the school prohibited people from taking bongs to the prom on the grounds that that would encourage drug use, would “But they’re not going to be actually **using** the bongs at the dance” be a valid counter argument? RickJay: I accede to your greater expertise in this matter. If they are indeed a special public institution, then my statment should be amended to “This is a silly rule which the school, as a special public institution, has the right to make”. ---
**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 3, 2002, 10:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-gods-sake-let-the-guy-take-his-boyfriend-to-the-prom/103228/153 "2002-05-03T10:50:44Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by The Ryan \* > **Even if homosexual intercourse is not going to occur at the dance, that doesn’t mean that allowing same sex dating doesn’t encourage it.** Even if heterosexual intercourse is not going to occur at the dance, that doesn’t mean that allowing opposite sex dating doesn’t encourage it. Feel free to parse this any damn way you want, but make sure and apply your semantic antics to your statement as well. Hurray for the Canadian Catholic School System, encouraging sexual intercourse among high school students since 1973. 😃 ---
**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 3, 2002, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-gods-sake-let-the-guy-take-his-boyfriend-to-the-prom/103228/154 "2002-05-03T19:31:33Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by The Ryan \* > > Let’s see… he wants to take someone of the same sex to the prom. They won’t let him, telling him that they don’t want to take someone of the same sex to the prom… > > Seeing as how they actually **said** that they don’t like people taking someone of the same sex to the prom, and did **not** say that they are against just homosexuals taking someone of the same sex to the prom, how is the latter rweasonable, and the former not? No. No, no, no, no, no. You are wrong. I have proof. Please look at _this direct quote_ from the article in the OP: > [@](#): > > **But the board ruled that it could not permit a gay couple to attend.** **"Gay couple."** Not “same-sex couple” - “gay couple.” I’m sure you, The Master of Quibbling Semantics, understands the difference between “same-sex couple” and “gay couple,” yes? Esprix ---
**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 3, 2002, 7:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-gods-sake-let-the-guy-take-his-boyfriend-to-the-prom/103228/155 "2002-05-03T19:36:36Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Esprix \* > \*\ ***“Gay couple.”** Not “same-sex couple” - “gay couple.” > I’m sure you, The Master of Quibbling Semantics, understands the difference between “same-sex couple” and “gay couple,” yes? > Esprix \*\* To further illustrate that difference- There is no Ask The Same-Sex Guy Thread . ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2002, 10:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-gods-sake-let-the-guy-take-his-boyfriend-to-the-prom/103228/156 "2002-05-03T22:00:51Z")
Huh. And I thought that gay people were the same as anybody else, wanting to date someone they were romantically interested in, not just looking to have hot monkey sex. Why didn’t you clarify this, **Esprix**? :rolleyes: ---
**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 3, 2002, 10:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-gods-sake-let-the-guy-take-his-boyfriend-to-the-prom/103228/157 "2002-05-03T22:27:59Z")
My apologies, **Polycarp**. I spoke hastily due to the outrage I feel at all the heterosexuals that take members of the same sex to the prom being discriminated against by the school board (those heartless bastards). Esprix, reiterating your :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2002, 10:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-gods-sake-let-the-guy-take-his-boyfriend-to-the-prom/103228/158 "2002-05-03T22:37:11Z")
Perhaps my addressing you veiled my point, sir. My reference was to the fact that, as ably made clear by **TheRyan** , the occasion for a gay student wishing to take his boyfriend to the prom was to promote the potential for sex. While I suspect that desiring sex is seldom far from the minds of most young heterosexual men taking dates to dances, in most cases there is, IMHO, also an interest in romance, a desire to have a fulfilling, requited love relationship with the other. Obviously, from **TheRyan** ’s exegesis, this is in fact not the case with gay people, and I would have preferred that you make that point clear in your **Ask the Gay Guy** threads, as I was under the impression that gay people, like straight people, fell in love and desired meaningful relationships including but not limited to sexual contact. I am however grateful to **TheRyan** for setting the record straight on this subject. Poly, seeing your :rolleyes: and raising it a :eek: ---
**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 3, 2002, 11:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-gods-sake-let-the-guy-take-his-boyfriend-to-the-prom/103228/159 "2002-05-03T23:10:37Z")
DMC: > [@](#): > > Even if heterosexual intercourse is not going to occur at the dance, that doesn’t mean that allowing opposite sex dating doesn’t encourage it. That’s true. And if the school decided to not allow dates at all, I would have a similar attitude towards that as I do to the current poilicy. > [@](#): > > e to parse this any damn way you want, but make sure and apply your semantic antics to your statement as well. Is there a specific sentence to which you wish me to apply my “semantic antics” (aren’t you the poet?)? Esprix > [@](#): > > ## no, no, no, no. You are wrong. I have proof. Please look at this direct quote from the article in the OP: quote: > > But the board ruled that it could not permit a gay couple to attend. Okay, so if they said that, where’s the quote? The article **paraphrased** the board’s decision. Therefore, debating the **exact terms** of the paraphrase is pointless, because there is no guarantee that the board in fact used those exact terms, and even if the did, it is not enough to determine what they meant by it. Did they mean a couple composed of gay people (in case a lesbian would not be allowed to take a gay man to the prom), or did they mean a couple who were of the same sex, and therefore composed a gay couple? > [@](#): > > I’m sure you, The Master of Quibbling Semantics, understands the difference between “same-sex couple” and “gay couple,” yes? As it is not a quote of my statments, my interpretation of the two terms is not relevant. What is relevant is whether the newspaper distinguishes between the two terms, and if so, what their reasons for using the term “gay couple” are. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Polycarp \* > Obviously, from **TheRyan** ’s exegesis, this is in fact not the case with gay people, and I would have preferred that you make that point clear in your **Ask the Gay Guy** threads, as I was under the impression that gay people, like straight people, fell in love and desired meaningful relationships including but not limited to sexual contact. In one thread, you dishonestly attribute to me positions that I have never taken, yet in another you say that I should respect your opinion. Do you not see these two practices to be at odds with each other? ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2002, 11:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-gods-sake-let-the-guy-take-his-boyfriend-to-the-prom/103228/160 "2002-05-03T23:23:13Z")
I inferred your position from the following quote: > [@](#): > > Even if homosexual intercourse is not going to occur at the dance, that doesn’t mean that allowing same sex dating doesn’t encourage it. Was this not intended, after rotating it from contrapositive to assertion, to imply that allowing same-sex dating would encourage homosexual intercourse? And is it therefore incorrect to pursue your statement to read it as implying that the reason why the young man might want to take his boyfriend to a dance is to have homosexual intercourse? That is the construction I would put on it as a logical inference from your initial contrapositive. However, since you have taken umbrage at people misrepresenting your position (in my case out of sheer inability to see where you’re going with the points you make), I will withdraw any critique of what you seem to be implying if you so desire, awaiting your spelling out in clear English the points you do want to make. I note on the Pit thread that you have now stated that the point you were trying to make in all this was that there was no discrimination. Several of us have attempted to suggest that the idea that both heterosexual and homosexual students have the right to take opposite-sex but not same-sex dates does in fact constitute discrimination against the homosexual students, by reason of their potential choice in dates, by any reasonable construction of what “no discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation” might mean. I welcome your deconstruction of this logic and look forward to seeing it. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-gods-sake-let-the-guy-take-his-boyfriend-to-the-prom/103228.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-gods-sake-let-the-guy-take-his-boyfriend-to-the-prom/103228.md?page=9)