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.
So if the government were prohibitting him, that would be okay?
From this:
I don’t believe that has been established.
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?
As I have said before, I don’t believe this claim to be adequately supported.
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?
No, I haven’t. I said that some people consider it to mean that.
A heterosexual is capable of homosexual conduct, in the sense of conduct that is homosexual.
The impression that I got from this thread was that people considered the aforementioned definition to be correct.
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.
Well, yes. But “the consensus is that ‘discrimination’ includes this policy” seems a bit preemptory to me.
Esprix: Oh, don’t be like that. Imitation is the highest form of flattery, don’t you know that? 
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.
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?
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?
{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.
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.
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.
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
“I don’t believe that has been established.” 
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.
I suppose The Ryan will say this proves it wasn’t discrimination because the school let them go to the prom. :rolleyes:
Esprix
From the article linked above:
So Canada’s Section 15 Charter, and the fact that the school is publicly funded, trump the RCC.
Here’s the part that might interest The Ryan:
As we’ve said all along, we’ve always understood the whole “orientation/behavior” point. However:
… 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
“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.
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.
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!
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.
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.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
When did I say that?
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?
According to the logc being used against this policy, yes. According to my own logic, no.
You said
So in this quote, were you just saying that the treatment of murderers is nondiscrimatory? If so, is the law against murder discriminatory?
I honestly do not understand how anyone could conclude that I missed that.
on behalf of Esprix, Marc and the Teeming Millions
"Once more into the breach, dear friends…"
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 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.
:::blinking, cigarette in hand, a la Edina Monsoon:::
“According to your what, sweetie?” 
Yes. No. Go back and read my previous posts. I don’t believe that your questions here establish anything new.
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
{removes hat, places on chest}
Aye, that Jerevan was a blessed soul, 'e was…
Esprix
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.
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.
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.
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.