Well, The Ryan, in a forlorn attempt to avoid another hijack into semantics, it would be my understanding that the predominant understanding of “a date of their choice” would be “a person in whom they have some romantic interest” (or at least a desire to jump the bones of) in a context relating to a high school-sponsored dance to which one brings a date. I presume that one could bring one’s feeble grandmother out of a compassionate desire to give her a chance to get out of the house (although, of course, in the context given, one would be required to obtain the school administration’s permission, since she would presumably not be a student at that school). However, the implication of the term “a date of their choice” would be that a straight student would be bringing a date in whom he or she has a romantic interest, i.e., under the normal meaning of straight in this context, one of the opposite sex, while a gay student would be bringing a date in whom he or she has a romantic interest, i.e., one of the same sex. (We will table the question of bisexuals for the moment.)
I would also question why one might assume that two “plutonic” (I presume a typo for “Platonic”) homosexuals are not passionately interested in Catholic doctrine. I can adduce a 13-month-old thread in this very forum in which a person with homosexual desires and a profound religious faith sought assistance in dealing with the conflict between his desires and his church’s teaching. I do concede that I may be misunderstanding your point in that sentence, and would, like others, appreciate your rephrasing and expanding on your meaning.
There is no disguise. Everyone else was discussing a high scool prom, so I discussed a high school prom. Implications that I am discussing a high school prom out of dishonest motives are out of place.
Sorry, I fail to see how making restrictions at a school prom is equivalent to outlawing an entire religion. So, is the IOC anti-homosexual for not allowing two men in the pairs figure skate? Are colleges that allow same sex roommates but not opposite sex ones discriminatory, because they allow heterosexuals to room with someone with whom they have no sexual interest, but they do not allow homosexuals the same oppurtunity?
What underlying assumptions must it lift? And how? Must every statement of policy begin with “This decision lifts the following assumptions to the light:…”?
What are you talking about? Polycarp implied that straight people are allowed to bring same sex dates. I asked whether that was in fact true. Are you saying that I am making an unfair decision? What exactly is that decision? Am I now to blame for this schools policy? I really don’t understand what you’re saying.
DMC
Sorry, that was meant as a joke. The idea of two ebodiements of death incarnate walking aroung a school prom struck me as somewhat funny.
Polycarp
Ah, yes, the old “taking people at their word is semantics” claim.
So you have never heard of someone going to the prom with someone with whom they have no romantic interest?
Your premise is in error here, since unless one suggests that every homosexual ipso facto has a sexual interest in every person of the same sex, the homosexuals have the same right to room with someone with whom they have no sexual interest as do the heterosexuals. You might have been further ahead if you suggested discrimination against the heterosexuals, who are not, as are the homosexuals, allowed to room with someone in whom they might be able to develop a sexual interest.
I did not. As long as we’re going to have to play “well, your words mean…” once again, I demand under the working standards of this board that you either demonstrate precisely where I posted anything which states or can reasonably be inferred to mean this, or render me an apology for misrepresenting my position.
No, semantics is the discipline of identifying precise meaning in utterances. Like you, I respect it. I feel that in threads where the understood connotation of a word is generally accepted, for any poster, notably yourself but I and others as well, to get into identifying the particular denotation of a given word or words in situations outside the subject under discussion is a semantic hijack. I also believe you to, for whatever contrarian reasons you espouse, be regularly guilty of creating such hijacks. I simply wanted to avoid another one.
To illustrate my point, if a poster asked, “Is there any concrete evidence that God gave Moses the Ten Commandments?” the assumption that the “God” in question is the one variously conceived of by Judaism, Christianity, and Islam is unspoken but present. To inquire whether there is any evidence for Zeus, Quetzalcoatal, Odin, or Magna Deorum Mater having done so, on the basis that they are the primary gods of other belief systems, is a hijack, because the question by reference to its constituent referents (Moses, Ten Commandments) appears to be speaking of Judaism and whether it can in fact be defended by objective evidence.
Let me refresh your memory with a quote from the same post from which you lifted the quotes of mine to which you responded.
In short, I explicitly recognized that there may be other reasons but that the predominant usage of the term had the meaning I had assumed. In short, while Gerald Ford was unquestionably President, there are still disputes about the 2000 election, and Thomas Jefferson and John Quincy Adams were chosen by the House of Representatives, the statement “Presidents are elected every four years by an Electoral College chosen to vote for them by popular vote” is an accurate description of most Presidential elections, and as such is a “true” statement. As in a previous Pit thread where you insisted on the definition of “homosexual” including all sexual conduct involving two or more people of the same sex, despite there being a general consensus that what was being described by it was adult consensual contact differentiated from pedophilia, once again you have decided that your insistence on exploring the full potential definitions of words is more important than the substantive issues being discussed by others. I for one find this offensive and trollish.
To be consistent, however, I note that:
Whence, the two “plutonic homosexuals” would be “infernal” or “from the planet Pluto” or “of or relating to the god Pluto or the underworld” and I would have to concur that having two such persons present at a school dance would definitely cause more significant issues than Catholic doctrine to be raised.
Something I am hearing in this thread that bothers me is all the people complaining that the Catholic church isn’t consistent in it’s bigotry. That’s completely ludicrous. The point isn’t that the pregnant girl SHOULDN’T go to the prom, but that the gay guy SHOULD. I am so sick of the “If I don’t get to then he doesn’t get to.” bullshit.
Erek, point taken – but I was under the impression that most people were complaining (1) that Canadian tax money was supporting a case of bigotry at all, and (2) that the school was being allowed to engage in any form of bigotry. Only incidentally was (3) inconsistency in bigotry raised.
Apologies to The Ryan for not chuckling at your response to my “plutonic” posting.
While I was aware that the word was platonic, and even from whence it came, I completely missed the typo until reading Polycarp’s message, and therefore was whooshed.
JubilationTCornpone, I’m afraid that argument doesn’t work, under Ontario’s human rights law. (Setting aside for the moment the Catholic school issue).
The Code prohibits discrimination in the provision of services, as set out in section 1. Section 12 then makes it clear that drawing a distinction based on association is a violation of the Code:
So this case, where the distinction is that the school authorities will allow him to come, but not to bring another person because of their sexual orientation, would violate section 12.
** matt** - with respect to your example of renting an apartment - you’re quite right that the Code would prohibit discrimination, but the Charter would not apply. The Charter only applies to government actors, not to private parties.
RickJay - the courts have held that sexual orientation is always a prohibited ground of discrimination under section 15 of the Charter. The question, as you point out, is how far section 15 applies in a particular case, such as the separate school system in Ontario.
If the school chooses the roommates, then the homosexuals would not be able to ensure that they room with someone that they are not attracted to. Also, you have left the other question unanswered.
I’m not sure what these “standards of the board” are. And I see no reason why you feel entitled to have it explained to you how this can be inferred from your statements (as if it were not obvious how I believe this is so), when you made no effort to explain your comment about what can be concluded from “my logic” in that thread you later reference (you know, the one where you implied that I was an asshole?).
So your statement that “straight students can take the date of their choice” means “straight students can take the date of their choice, which will usually be someone of the opposite sex”, which still carries the implication that in the unusual situation that a straight student wishes to take a member of the same sex, they would be allowed to do so.
I believed that the original formulation of your statement overemphasized the distinction between homosexual and heterosexual students. I believed that overemphasis to be a significant issue, and it was its impact on the existing discussion that was paramount to me, not simply “exploring the full potential definitions of words”. I honestly believe that your statement was equivocation, possibly without the connotations of intential misleading. Really what your statement comes down to is “people who wish to take a member of the opposite sex to the prom are allowed to, while people who wish to bring someone of the opposite sex are not allowed to”, which is simply a restatement of the policy. You made it sound discriminatory by equating the terms “people who wish to take a member of the opposite sex” with “heterosexuals” and vice versa, but by that logic if they serve chicken but not steak at the prom, it would be accurate to say “people who like chicken are allowed to eat whatever they want, but people who like steak have to eat whatever they’re served”.
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.
And I find refusing to respond to people’s points in the original thread, and then bringing up the points that they have already addressed in a new, irrelevant thread, to be offensive and trollish.
They should go and they should get lots of gay rights groups having a demo outside with tv cameras, if you let people push you about they just do it again.
I think I see your point now, The Ryan. However, I feel that there is some validity to rationally used stereotyping. That is, one can speak in generalities, with due reference to the rare exception, and make accurate statements. If I were to say, “people who post here generally type the letter L with their right hand,” I would be making an accurate statement. The fact that there may be a few posters who have a crippled right hand or who have had it amputated, and hence type solely with their left hand, and perhaps there are one or two quadraplegics who use an orally-held stylus to post, and one or two people with voice-operated equipment who dictate their posts, using their hands only to correct errors, does not make my statement erroneous, because I was speaking in general terms.
I readily concede that there may be students, of any sexual orientation, who take dates to school proms for reasons other than romantic or sexual attraction, and that among these may be those who might opt to have a same-sex date but who are themselves heterosexually oriented, or for that matter (1) a closeted homosexual or (2) someone engaged in that subterfuge mentioned by another poster, who takes a date of the opposite sex either as (1) a beard or (2) as part of an arrangement where A (male) takes B (female) and C (male) takes D (female) where the romantic or sexual attraction is between A and C and between B and D. However, in general terms, “a person of their choice” is presumed (at least by myself and I believe the majority of other posters) to mean “someone in whom the dater has a romantic or sexual interest.” I have no desire to beat this into the ground, and can see the rationale for your finding the examination of the point to be of importance.
However, while (a) it is a possibility that a person of heterosexual orientation may have a good reason for wishing to take someone of the same sex to the prom, and likewise a person of homosexual orientation a similarly good reason to take someone of the opposite sex, it is the custom in most places of which I am familiar for one to wish to take a date in whom one has a romantic and/or sexual interest, which would by any reasonable assessment for the heterosexual population mean someone of the opposite sex, and for the homosexual population someone of the same sex. (May we omit the question of what bisexuals might do, which would add another element of complexity to the discussion, without prejudice to them and their orientation?)
Having pursued this to that extent, I agree that it has been a hijack of the OP, which was not my intent. My post was in direct response to the following comment:
While I agree that he is not being discriminated against solely on the basis of his sexual orientation, he is being denied a privilege extended to his fellow students – to bring to a dance a date in whom they are romantically and/or sexually interested. Scott’s OP and the story referenced in it defined the young man in question to have been “gay” and his proposed date as “his boyfriend.” Though this might have been a reference to his blithe emotional state and his closest friend, I presume that any reading of the terminology used in the year 2002 would imply that they are a same-sex couple of homosexual (or perhaps bisexual) orientation.
I guess that my main problem with that statement is that his inability to be sexually attracted to members of the category of people that he can take to that dance is not caused by the school, and therefore to say that the school is denying him the priviledge of taking a person he is sexually attracted to is inaccurate. If the school required that all dates be at least twelve years old, would that be discriminatory against pedophiles?
::waits for inevitable cries of “You’re saying that homosexuality and pedophilia are equivalent?”::
I have a question for people in general: going back to the Jewish analogy, if you found out that this school prohibits Jewish religious practices, but allows Catholic ones, would you have a problem with that? Would you consider the statement “Catholics can practice any religion they want, but Jews can’t” to be an accurate description?
SEXUALLY attracted? Is it a requirement that people who take people of the opposite gender to the prom are sexually attracted to them? You can’t take a date just because you enjoy their company or they are fun to be with? If they don’t get your rocks off or make you feel hot and horny then they aren’t a “legitimate” date?
And we are going to enforce this requirement in terms of heterosexuals, how? Lie detectors at the door?
:rolleyes:
** his inability to be sexually attracted to members of the category of people that he can take to that dance**
It would be OK for this young male to take a 12 year old female to the prom if his intention was to fuck her ass off, but it’s **not ** OK for him to take a male as his partner under any circumstances?
Inability? Geez, man, you make it sound like he’s impaired or ill or something…
Oh, now don’t start THAT again.
Catholics would be able to practice any religion they want. The religion (I would assume) they would want to practice would be Catholicism, but if I were going to school there and wanted to have, for example, a pagan handbinding ceremony (which I have read about on this board), would that not be allowed? Or is the description saying that “if you’re Catholic, you can practice whatever religion you want, but if you’re not then you cant?”?
If, however, Catholics were allowed to practice any religion they wanted provided it was Catholicism, then no, I would not find the statement “catholics can practice any religion they want” to be accurate.
Pay closer attention to the thread; this is happening in Canada, and part of the problem is that the Canadian constitution allows it to happen because of the special status accorded Catholic school boards.
The Ryan, I don’t think that the Canadian courts would accept this distinction. Our courts have rejected what’s been termed “formal” equality, and approach discrimination issues from the question of “substantive equality.”
The Charter and the Human Rights Codes prohibit discrimination on various grounds. The courts have held that those formal categories of prohibited grounds of discrimination also include closely related personal characteristics which flow from those prohibited grounds.
For example, in one of the leading human rights cases, Brooks v. Canada Safeway, an employer’s health plan did not cover pregnancy-related medical expenses. It covered nearly everything else, but not pregnancy expenses. Some female employees brought a complaint, arguing that the plan was discriminatory.
The employer responded by saying that the plan didn’t discriminate against women, because it was offered to male and female employees equally. The plan distinguished on the basis of pregnancy, not sex.
The Supreme Court unanimously rejected that argument, and upheld the complaint. Speaking for the Court, Chief Justice Dickson stated:
Pregnancy is so inherently related to being female, that distinctions based on pregnancy are distinctions based on sex.
I would think that the same type of analysis would apply here. Sexual orientation is a prohibited ground of discrimination. A gay person’s sexual orientation means that he will be attracted to other males. Marc’s desire to date another male is an expression of his sexual orientation. Taking steps that restrict him from dating another male is a distinction based on the person’s sexual orientation, and therefore discrimination based on sexual orientation, in my opinion. I doubt that the courts will accept the formal distinction you are drawing.
So, just to make sure I understand this… by your argument, the Children going to Catholic school should not say the Lords Prayer or learn about the Bible in school either? I don’t think either are taught whatsoever in Ontario Public schools.
In Alberta, property owners specify which school system their taxdollars go to, either Public or seperate (Catholic). Is it a similar system in Ontario?
To answer your first question: no, the Lord’s Prayer isn’t allowed in Ontario public schools, as it shouldn’t be, given there are students of many faiths there. However, in a Catholic school, things are a bit different.
To answer your second question: yes.
Anyway, I’m not saying religion shouldn’t be taught in Catholic schools - that would defeat the purpose. I just don’t think it right that because of some precedent they’re given a carte blanche to pull this kind of shit.
How much do you want to bet next year’s prom is organized by the students and not overseen by the school administration? I read an interesting interview with Marc Hall in Saturday’s Globe and Mail, and it seems he has the support of the majority of other students.