I’m not quite sure what happened there. This is what I meant to post:
If you can’t provide the cases, then I have no obligation to accept them.
You are using the fact that many people disagree with me as a point against me. That is a modified version of argumentum ad popolarum. It’s not the basis of your argument, but it is part of your argument.
Then why do you keep bringing it up?
I don’t think this is going anywhere. Let me just say that you are grossly misunderstanding my position and leave it at that.
Because you’re trying to say they are equivalent, and they’re not.
I didn’t say that no comparison can be made. I simply disagreed with a specific comparison.
You’re avoiding the question. Is it or is it not discrimination?
They wouldn’t be a class, they’d be a group. I’m not sure what to call the class. “Homocidity”?
But I am going to get into the disgusting and dishonest implication that I am comparing them. I have repeatedly asked about hypotheticals, whether they are examples of discrimination. You don’t respond. I specifically ask what people’s definition’s of “discrimination” is. Nothing from you. I ask whether this is discrimination, and you ignore my question, instead imlpying that I trying to compare the two situations, while at the same time claiming that you “won’t get into it”.
Excuse me? You hound me about mixed-race couples questions, present a bunch of anologies about racism and sexism and anti-atheism, but when I try to figure out just what you mean by this word “discrimination”, I’m changing the subject?
Your propensity for insisting that I have not addressed somthing that I have addressed is rather strange.
I am not “defining” it as not being discrimination against homosexuals, I’m just saying that it’s not. There’s a big difference. As for “Why isn’t it discrimination?” that’s simply not a valid question. I’ve tried really hard to try to explain to you why not, but I don’t seem to be getting through and I don’t what else to say.
That’s not what this debate is about, and while I see why you think it is related, I really don’t think that it would be a good idea to get into that.
It’s indecent of me to not respond to everything you say? I saw no question marks, explicit or implied, nor did I see anything new. I don’t think this is immoral, you think it is. I thought that we had established that long ago.
I wouldn’t have brought it up myself, but since you insist on having my opinion, I think that’s quite silly. It’s wrong to oppose something “just” because you believe it is evil? What possible other reason could you have?!? I take it even though you think that them denying his choice of date is wrong, that’s not enough for you to oppose it? I take it you have some other reason?
UPDATE: after a two day hearing in the Ontario Superior Court, the judge has reserved his decision until Friday, just a few hours before the prom is to start: Gay teen takes prom fight to court
Um, not quite. I think the precedent which has been established is that “denying treatment for pregnancy” is intrinsically discrimination against women (because the two cannot be separated in any practical way). And this discrimination is illegal because it’s against a class which is already defined as protected by anti-discrimination laws.
And before we go further, here is the definition of discrimination you requested of another poster:
3.Treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit; partiality or prejudice
Note also that, at least in the United States, the legal term applied to the group of people who share the characteristic against which it is illegal to discriminate is protected class.
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. And under the law murderers are not defined as a protected class; they are not a group which is protected because of some shared characteristic. Remember, we have been discussing the implications of the issue raised by the OP on the basis of existing law.
Hmmm. But whether you agree with the argument, do you see how it can be argued, given your statement above, that discrimination against the conduct in tantamount to discrimination against the orientation? If, in practice, the observer can define/recognize a person of homosexual orientation only by his conduct, then discrimination against the conduct is by the observer’s definition discrimination against the orientation. That is, based on what you’ve said above, if one observes homosexual conduct (see below for more on this), then one can fairly draw the conclusion that the person observed has a homosexual orientation. If the observer can’t separate the two concepts in practice, then s/he necessarily discriminates against both or neither. Just as discrimination against pregnancy is held to be the same as discrimination against women, because in practice one cannot separate the two.
Again, I’m not pressing you to agree with me. I’m just asking whether you can see that this is a reasonable argument to make.
I don’t agree, based on the definition of “homosexual” provided in my earlier post. All definitions of homosexual carry some connotation of sexual behavior, desire or inclination. Going to the grocery story is not a mode of conduct with sexual connotations; anal sex is.
Not exactly. Phoenix Dragon is not challenging your arguments because the majority appear to disagree with those arguments; he is challenging your position because either (a) you are not explaining it in a way which is clear to him/us; and/or (b) you are not supporting it adequately. And a governing principle of this forum is
That’s why you’ve been asked to define some of your terms, and why I offer commonly-held definitions (from a dictionary) of those terms. If we can’t arrive at some agreed-upon meaning for “discrimination”, “homosexual”, etc., then we can’t have a meaningful discussion.
You’ve been perfectly willing, indeed quite tediously so, to go off on all sorts of bizarre tangents with little relevance to the issue at hand, and yet you refuse to address this question. The comparison is valid, and you know that if you address it you will be stuck with either admitting that you are wrong or adopting the unsavory position that bans on interracial dating are perfectly okay.
Well, seems others have already addressed a few of the points better than I have been, apparently, though I have the sinking feeling it won’t make any difference. Anyway…
Yeah, expect that to happen when you state an argument and then refuse to adequatly address counter-arguments.
And actually, I understand what you’re trying to say, it’s just that the reasoning behind it seems to make absolutely no sense, and you’re not giving much of an effort to make it clear, are you?
No, I’m saying they’re similar, not equivalent.
Then explain why it isn’t a valid comparison, instead of just saying “they’re different.”
I thought my post made it perfectly clear that, while you can twist the words any way you want and say it’s discrimination against murderers, the fact is that it is not legally discrimination, and that further, by having broken the laws of the society and giving up certain rights, they loose any claim to such.
Is this just another semantics game to obstruct the thread, or is there really any importance to this statement?
Not a valid question??? Your entire argument is that it’s not discrimination, but asking why it isn’t isn’t a valid question?? What kind of fucked-up logic is there in that? If you can’t adequatly explain how it’s not discrimination, especially with all the counter-arguments presented, you don’t have much of a case, do you?
[Liar-Liar]“Because it’s devestating to my case!”[/Liar-Liar]
I’m pretty sure it’s not a good idea for you to get into it, but since they’re very similar to what you’re arguing now, and fall into the exact same logical paths you’ve layed out for homosexuality, they are completely valid. Well? Is barring those kinds of dates discriminatory?
Personally, I think the best way of defining something as being wrong is that it causes unjustified harm to someone. Stealing is wrong, because it victimizes someone. Murder is wrong because it victimizes someone. Bringing a homosexual date to a prom doesn’t victimize anyone, but barring that date because of that orientation does. Simple enough for you?
And what “other reason” exactly are you implying, since you seem to have concluded I must have one?
So how does the school’s behavior satisfy that definition?
My understanding is that the term “protected class” refers to a specific type of characteristic such sexuality, sex, or race, and not to specific groups such as homosexuals, women, or blacks. What is the basis for your position?
How is that different from the prom case? They are judging him on his merits- that is, on the basis of breaking the “no same sex dates” rule.
I am not asking whether it is illegal discrimination, but whether it is discrimination.
I certainly have some sympathy for the position. However, I cannot see how it would not lead to the conclusion that all rules are discrimination against those that would wish to break them. After all, no person that doesn’t want to break the rule will be affected by it.
I disagree that they can’t be separated. Once it has been determined that someone is a homosexual, continual homosexual behavior is not necessary to maintain that status. Marc will be no less of a homosexual simply because did not bring a man to the dance.
My opinion is that the obvious interpretation of “homosexual conduct” is conduct that is homosexual. However, there are many who apparently believe that it refers to conduct that is performed by homosexuals, and in that sense a gay man going to the grocery store is homosexual conduct.
Pehaps it is not his main motivation, but it certainly is a point that he is presenting as being in his favor.
But Marc is violating the “no same sex dates” rule.
I really don’t like to fall back on cliches such as “it’s impossible to prove a negative” but well… it’s impossible to prove a negative. Suppose I were to accuse you of a murder. How are you not guilty of that? Can you prove that you didn’t kill him?
I didn’t ask about why you believe that this is wrong. What I am surprised at is that you seem to find someone thinking something is sinful as not being sufficient reason to oppose it.
I really don’t know what other reason you have. But surely you aren’t opposed it just because you think it’s wrong? After all, you already expressed disgust at the school for opposing something just because they think it’s wrong.
I am in awe of the fact that The Ryan has managed to hijack this thread for four pages worth of defining words. Truly an accomplishment (of what, I’ll let others decide).
And, once again, I will ask the question: 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)?
Whether or not you appreciate a Pit thread or three about you, the question above has much validity, and I keep wondering why you won’t answer it.
Oh, no, wait, I know why - the school intended to bar a gay student from bringing his boyfriend to the prom. (We do remember the OP, now, don’t we?)
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. You will not find a single jurisdiction that has “murderers” as one of those conditions. I know I’ve said this before, so what’s the problem?
A rule that has absolutely nothing to do with the laws of society. It’s not the same thing. I can make a rule that I can hack off someone’s arm if they sneeze, but that doesn’t change the LAW that it is illegal for me to do that.
I could present an explanation for how I couldn’t have done it, evidence showing I couldn’t have done it, or dozens of other things, which you seem to be lacking in this argument. And that does nothing to explain how it’s not a valid question. You can’t just make a statement and then say it’s invalid to question it because you don’t feel like presenting any reasoning.
Where did you get that idea? They can oppose it all they wan’t. They can’t illegally obstruct it, however.
And, gee, surprise, you’ve ignored yet more from me:
Is barring inter-racial or inter-faith dating discrimination or not? Quit ignoring this question.
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. Regardless of how far-reaching the idea of homosexual conduct is (see below), you have defined such conduct as a characteristic to people of homosexual orientation – that is, a group, class or category. (And in this I agree with you generally, though not on where the specific bounds are.) Taken together, these two points fit the commonly accepted definition of discrimination. Since homosexuals are protected against discrimination by Canadian law, this situation certainly qualifies as potentially illegal discrimination – which, as other posters have reminded you, was the subject of the OP. It is not sufficient, in this particular thread, for you to use whatever definition of discrimination you prefer. If you wish to debate the definition or nature of what constitutes discrimination in general, start another thread.
When the law bans discrimination against a particular characteristic (race, gender, sexuality, disability, veteran status, etc.), the law considers that any group of people who share a specific instance of that characteristic (specific race, specific gender, specific sexual orientation, specific disability, etc.) as a protected class. The concepts of characteristic (in your usage) and protected class are not synonymous. For instance, laws which ban discrimination on the basis of the characteristic of gender/sex create two protected classes: men, who are protected from any discrimination which proceeds solely from their being men; and women, who are protected from any discrimination which proceeds solely from their being women.
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. Part of the reasoning behind this is that anti-discrimination laws should guarantee all members of society treatment on the basis of individual merit. This is why, I think, Esprix has asked his particular question of you (see his last post) and is still waiting for an answer.
I am currently searching for an on-line definition of protected class for you. My own knowledge of this comes from my discussions with lawyers. If I do find a link or a citation I shall post it; but the point is not crucial to my overall argument. It was more of an aside for general information.
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. Even if the school does have such a rule, that rule does not appear to be the reason for the school’s decision, based on the school’s stated position.
Re-read the definition of discrimination in my earlier post, the articles in the National Post to which Northern Piper linked us on Page 3 of this thread, and the first part of this post.
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 because, as you point out, anyone who does not break the laws will not be subject to the treatment (legal consequences) of doing so. The concept of discrimination which you are proposing is certainly thought-provoking, but a subject for another thread – and you might find that others would be happy to discuss this notion with you on the basis of the question/issue you would pose by starting such a thread. If discrimination were not commonly defined as I have cited, then it would raise some interesting questions about what is not discrimination. Here, though, we are discussing whether the school’s actions constitute illegal discrimination as the relevant definitions, laws, statutes and constitutional precedents stand today.
But they are inseparable, in your estimation. You have already defined homosexual conduct as anything that a person of homosexual orientation does – not that I entirely agree, but that is another matter (see below). As far as I am aware, you have not indicated that you think a heterosexual person is capable of homosexual conduct. In fact, given your definition of homosexual conduct, this last idea seems impossible. So regardless of whether the homosexual conduct continues, you have defined conduct as inseparable from orientation. The school’s actions are based on the student’s wish to engage in homosexual conduct. Ergo, from your own point of view (as I understand it) the school’s decision must be ultimately and inseparably rooted in the student’s homosexual orientation.
(“Many”? Really? Cite, please?) And based on your previous post on this point, you appear to be one of the “many” (???) who use this latter definition. As I have pointed out regarding other words, this is not an accepted definition of the term. It is not even a practical one, and here is why: you see a man in the grocery store. What is his sexual orientation?
In the sense that by its very nature, the definition of a word or term is a matter of consensus, yes. I will repeat: if we wish to have a meaningful discussion, we have to agree upon the specific meanings and connotations of certain key words which we will use in the discussion – at least within the context of the discussion if not beyond. This thread is about whether the school’s actions constitute illegal discrimination against a homosexual according to the meanings which those words have in North American English in the early 21st-century. If you wish to debate the meanings themselves, you can start another thread.
Hey, wait a minute!!! You guys get skills training in debating and typing from being gay? :eek:
I had to teach myself.
This is yet another example of the evil International Gay Conspiracy for World Domination at work!! I’ll have to remember to let December know, and the gang over at the Pizza Parlor, and Wildest Bill, and…
No, Polycarp, my homosexual debating and typing skills required no special training. They flow entirely from my homosexual orientation. Tsk, tsk, haven’t you been paying attention?
After this thread, I’m thinking of starting one called “Don’t Ask the Gay Guy Unless You’re Really Sure You Want To Get Into It”.
But I still await answers to my questions. Are Phoenix Dragons true dragons or merely hybrid dragonets? What do they eat? Do they come into contact with other dragons often? What are Phoenix Dragons atttitudes concerning prismatic, gem, and ferrous dragons?
It’s indecent of me to not respond to everything you say? I saw no question marks, explicit or implied, nor did I see anything new. I don’t think this is immoral, you think it is. I thought that we had established that long ago.
