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

[The_Ryan]

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by reprise *
SEXUALLY attracted? Is it a requirement that people who take people of the opposite gender to the prom are sexually attracted to them?[/qute]
It was Polycarp that introduced this notion (okay, he said “romantically and/or sexually”, but I think that the “romantically” part can be removed without changing the essential meaning). If you have a problem with that, take it up with him. If you were paying attention to the thread, perhaps you would have noticed that I made the same type of points that you did.

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?

Where are you getting this?

Iamapunha

Inability? Geez, man, you make it sound like he’s impaired or ill or something…

Polycarp claimed that he is impaired from taking the person he wants to the dance. Do you disagree with that? Why do you go out of your way to take offense?

Oh, now don’t start THAT again.

Don’t start what again?

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.

So do you find the statement “heterosexuals can take anyone they want to the dance, provided it’s a person of the opposite sex” to be accurate? If so, how is it different?

Northern Piper:

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,

But they’re not restricting him from dating another male; they’re just restricting him from taking another male to the dance. Furthermore, there is no “distinction” being made. Whether a person is homosexual or not has no bearing on who he is allowed to take to the dance. I agree that this is a gray area, since it has a disproportionate effect on a particular group. But I don’t think that the government should be in the business of assuring that everyone has as identical experiences as possible.

[CarnalK]

Many people from outside Ontario may not realize that under archaic French-English compromises(after all that “who owns this continent” broohaha) Catholic school boards are publicly funded. It’s true that they are allowed leeway but when you get tax money it’s tricky to flaunt the Charter of Rights.

[Northern_Piper]

*Originally posted by The Ryan *
**<snip>

Northern Piper:

But they’re not restricting him from dating another male; they’re just restricting him from taking another male to the dance. Furthermore, there is no “distinction” being made. Whether a person is homosexual or not has no bearing on who he is allowed to take to the dance. I agree that this is a gray area, since it has a disproportionate effect on a particular group. But I don’t think that the government should be in the business of assuring that everyone has as identical experiences as possible. **

Well, our Human Rights Codes aren’t enacted to assure everyone has the same experiences. They’re enacted to prevent public and private service providers from discriminating on the prohibited grounds.

In this case, the school is providing a service to the public, namely a dance. Our courts have interpreted the phrase “services” in the Codes in the broadest possible fashion, and I can’t imagine the courts would hold that providing an education and related activities is not a service. (And I would respectfully disagree with the poster earlier in the thread who said that the church doesn’t provide services - the school in this case is not run by the church, but established under provincial statutes.)

Your argument seems to be that since the school isn’t restricting the guy from dating another male outside of the school, it’s not making a distinction. That’s irrelevant to the application of the Code. The Code applies to the service that the school is providing, and to the terms on which it offers the service. By telling the fellow that he can’t bring a male to the dance because it’s contrary to the church’s teaching on homosexuality, the school has expressly made a distinction based on the guy’s sexual orientation.

Same analysis would follow if the distinction were made against inter-race dating. If the school were to say to a white boy, “You can date whoever you want outside, but you can’t bring a First Nations girl to the dance as your date,” that would be discriminatory. It’s not what the two of them can do away from the dance that matters; it’s the fact that the school authorities are preventing them from coming to the dance together, based on their respective races, that would be discriminatory.

[Northern_Piper]

*Originally posted by CarnalK *
Many people from outside Ontario may not realize that under archaic French-English compromises(after all that “who owns this continent” broohaha) Catholic school boards are publicly funded. It’s true that they are allowed leeway but when you get tax money it’s tricky to flaunt the Charter of Rights.

Well, as stated earlier in the thread, it’s not a matter of “leaway,” nor does the fact of public money mean that the Charter applies to all aspects of the separate schools.

The key point is that ever since Confederation, the Constitution of Canada has guaranteed that certain religious minorities, in some provinces, can have separate schools, based on religious values, with public funding.

More recently, the Court has held that the enactment of the Charter has not diminished those constitutional protections for the separate schools, and that the provinsions of the Charter prohibiting discrimination cannot be used to challenge the operation of the separate schools.

The leading case on this point is REFERENCE RE BILL 30, AN ACT TO AMEND THE EDUCATION ACT (ONT.), a decision of the Court in 1987, which upheld public funding to the separate schools from a challenge under sections 2 and 15 of the Charter. The majority judgment addresses the issue of the application of the Charter:

62 This does not mean, however, that such rights or privileges are vulnerable to attack under ss. 2(a) and 15 of the Charter. I have indicated that the rights or privileges protected by s. 93(1) are immune from Charter review under s. 29 of the Charter. I think this is clear. What is less clear is whether s. 29 of the Charter was required in order to achieve that result. In my view, it was not. I believe it was put there simply to emphasize that the special treatment guaranteed by the constitution to denominational, separate or dissentient schools, even if it sits uncomfortably with the concept of equality embodied in the Charter because not available to other schools, is nevertheless not impaired by the Charter. It was never intended, in my opinion, that the Charter could be used to invalidate other provisions of the Constitution, particularly a provision such as s. 93 which represented a fundamental part of the Confederation compromise. Section 29, in my view, is present in the Charter only for greater certainty, at least in so far as the Province of Ontario is concerned.

[Polycarp]

In short, then, Northern Piper, what I am getting is that religiously-oriented schools supported by the government are free to teach the tenets of their faith, including moral stances, but may not violate the legal standards as regards discrimination in offering their services to the public. Is this correct?

The Ryan, without rancor I’d like to say that I am having a very difficult time deciphering what you intend to prove in your posts, though I’m getting a glimmer of how you disagree with me.

It was my thesis that, in prohibiting this young man from bringing the (not “a”) date of his choice, i.e., the person with whom he was romantically involved, the school was discriminating against him on the basis of his sexual orientation. (This phrase in my understanding is not speaking of sex acts but of sexuality – i.e., the person towards whom one feels the sort of intimate attraction that might lead to a romance, sexual activity, and marriage.) I gather that you disagree with that stance. I’d like to request that without recursive quotes, you state equally explicitly what your contrary understanding of the situation is. Then perhaps we can discuss it rationally without my feeling (perhaps unjustly) that you have conducted a “semantic hijack” and you feeling (I feel unjustly) that I am improperly flaming you for doing so. In short, I offer you peace and a request for a clear statement of your position.

[Polycarp]

In short, then, Northern Piper, what I am getting is that religiously-oriented schools supported by the government are free to teach the tenets of their faith, including moral stances, but may not violate the legal standards as regards discrimination in offering their services to the public. Is this correct?

The Ryan, without rancor I’d like to say that I am having a very difficult time deciphering what you intend to prove in your posts, though I’m getting a glimmer of how you disagree with me.

It was my thesis that, in prohibiting this young man from bringing the (not “a”) date of his choice, i.e., the person with whom he was romantically involved, the school was discriminating against him on the basis of his sexual orientation. (This phrase in my understanding is not speaking of sex acts but of sexuality – i.e., the person towards whom one feels the sort of intimate attraction that might lead to a romance, sexual activity, and marriage.) I gather that you disagree with that stance. I’d like to request that without recursive quotes, you state equally explicitly what your contrary understanding of the situation is. Then perhaps we can discuss it rationally without my feeling (perhaps unjustly) that you have conducted a “semantic hijack” and you feeling (I feel unjustly) that I am improperly flaming you for doing so. In short, I offer you peace and a request for a clear statement of your position.

[The_Ryan]

*Originally posted by Northern Piper *
Your argument seems to be that since the school isn’t restricting the guy from dating another male outside of the school, it’s not making a distinction.

That was only in response to your statement that they were restricting his choices in dating, which implied that he was not allowed to date this guy at all.

By telling the fellow that he can’t bring a male to the dance because it’s contrary to the church’s teaching on homosexuality, the school has expressly made a distinction based on the guy’s sexual orientation.

But if he were straight, they still wouldn’t allow him to take this guy to the dance. So they aren’t making a distinction based on his sexuality.

Suppose this school has a chapel, and a homosexual couple wishes to be married in it, and the school refuses on the grounds that the couple is homoseuxal. Would that violate the code?

Polycarp:

It was my thesis that, in prohibiting this young man from bringing the (not “a”) date of his choice, i.e., the person with whom he was romantically involved, the school was discriminating against him on the basis of his sexual orientation.

As I said to Northern Piper, since he would have been prohibited even if he were straight, he is not being discriminated against.

[scott_evil]

OK, so we’ve heard all the arguments. I’ve been enlightened by citations of legal cases that (although stupid) seem to empower the Catholic school boards to override the rights & freedoms set forth by the federal and provincial governments.

However, this carte blanche for these institutions to do as they will - in this case, to spit in the face of civil rights - was clearly set by legal rulings and precedent. IMHO, it’s time to take this before the Provincial Legislature, the Supreme Court, or whatever body can turn this around.

The Catholic school board has every right to teach its religion. I have no problem with the accordance of that right. However, I have a problem when they disguise their dogma - which goes against our fundamental, legislated human rights - as enforcible, legally-sanctioned doctrine. That’s what has to change. Just because one or two or three cases ruled in favour of their right to supercede the Charter of Rights and Freedoms or Code of Rights (whatever it’s called) does not preclude another challenge, and changes to the status quo. Our perceptions, and conceptions, of human rights are always in flux. Prior rulings are not written in stone.

Marc Hall probably won’t get to go to his prom with his boyfriend. But even when prom night is over, with the puke of jocks still reeking up the banquet hall, the battle will continue, believe you me.

If I lived in Toronto (or whatever bloody God-forsaken suburb he lives in… Durham?) I’d give him a big hug and tell him that it’s going to be OK. If need be, I’ll post something I wrote after watching “The Matthew Shepard Story.” It crystallizes how I felt growing up gay, being out in high school in an era when no one else was, and how things have changed for me.

Even though he’s embroiled in this battle, and the ensuing media circus, I envy him. I could never have done that at 17. I was too afraid then. I have no fear anymore - I’m beyond it, and I’m glad of that.

If anything, I hope my legacy as an out queer in high school will be when one of my old friends or acquaintences has a kid who tells his or her parents that he or she is gay/lesbian… and they’ll think, “That’s cool. Just like scott and Ryan. They were great guys.”

The parents, having known me & my boyfriend, will be OK with it, because they liked us and were cool with the whole gay thing. The kid will have parents who will accept him or her.

That is why I’m out.

• s.e.

[DMC]

*Originally posted by The Ryan *
But if he were straight, they still wouldn’t allow him to take this guy to the dance. So they aren’t making a distinction based on his sexuality.

Cite?

[Northern_Piper]

Yes, The Ryan, like DMC I would like to see a cite for that proposition, because nothing I have seen in the media reports supports your view.

This issue didn’t arise in this case because the school board established a general ban on students bringing a date of the same sex. Instead, the media reports indicate that the school has a policy on bringing dates who are not students. If a student who wants to bring a date who does not also attend the school, the student must clear that date with the school board. The student here complied with that policy and indicated that he wanted to bring his boyfriend, and was turned down. It was his particular request, as a young gay, to bring his gay date, which triggered the brouhaha.

The media reports also establish that the reason for the Board’s decision is the sexual orientation of the two young guys. From articles in the National Post:

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.

<snip>

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.

and

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.”

The board is being quite clear: he can’t bring a male date because he’s gay.

(Note: I can’t give a direct cite to these articles because the National Post website doesn’t allow for it. I found them by plugging “durham” and “hall” into the NP’s search engine.)

[Northern_Piper]

*Originally posted by Polycarp *
In short, then, Northern Piper, what I am getting is that religiously-oriented schools supported by the government are free to teach the tenets of their faith, including moral stances, but may not violate the legal standards as regards discrimination in offering their services to the public. Is this correct?

Polycarp, that’s my general understanding, but subject to the point that in this case the school is asserting that its conduct is mandated by its religious beliefs. From the news reports, it looks like the board will argue that its actions are therefore protected by the constitutional protections respecting separate schools.

That’s why I said in my first post that I’m interested to see how it comes out in the courts, because the school and the student are both going to be relying on different parts of the Canadian Constitution to support their respective positions.

[The_Ryan]

If a homosexual wants to take someone of the same sex to a dance, and the Catholic Church objects to it, I think that the reasonable presumption is that they are doing so because of the same sex issue, not the sexuality of the student. It seems to me that if you are charging discrimination on the basis that they would not have reacted the same way if this student had been straight, the burden of proof is on you to substantiate the claim.

Northern Piepr, I’m not sure what you think those quotes prove. The Catholic Church does not allow homosexuality. It does, however, allow people to be of a homosexual orientation. Those quotes support this. Perhaps you think that the phrase “homosexual dating” refers to homosexuals that are dating, but I think that it is a reasonable interpretation that it refers to dating that is homosexual. Homosexuality, in this context, refers to expressing one’s sexuality with someone on the same sex, not the simple state of being attracted to members of your own sex. Note that they say “however, the behaviours associated with a homosexual lifestyle are not consistent with Church teachings and our values as a Catholic school system.” They say “behaviors”, not “inclinations”. They say “homosexual lifestyle”, not “homosexual orientatation”. Nowhere in any of those quotes is anything said about people that have same sex attractions. All that is discussed are behaviors. In this case, absent compelling evidence, I believe that the reasonable conclusion is that it was the student’s behavior, not his sexuality, that the school objected to.

[The_Ryan]

The board is being quite clear: he can’t bring a male date because he’s gay.

Nowehere did the board say that. Bringing a male date would be a homosexual behavior, and is therefore not allowed. There is nothing in any of the quotes to suggest that a straight student wishing to engage in homosexual behavior would be allowed.

[Northern_Piper]

*Originally posted by The Ryan *
**<snip>

Northern Piepr, I’m not sure what you think those quotes prove.

<snip>**

You’re quite right, of course. What could I have possibly been thinking? Why would I have posted those quotations?

On reflection, here’s my Top 10 list of reasons for posting those quotations:

10. Didn’t want the thread to die

11. To test the “Quote” and “bold” functions

12. Hi, Opal!

13. To attract the attention of the unRev. Mr. Phelps when he does random Google searches

14. To pad my post count

15. Just Because.

16. To give Polycarp a break from arguing with you.

17. It wasn’t me who posted it, but 10,000 monkeys, typing at random

18. Plugging the National Post always gets matt_mcl mad
    And, the top reason to post those quotations:

19. The quotations show that the school’s decision was based on the student’s sexual orientation, a prohibited ground of discrimination under the Ontario Human Rights Code

[Esprix]

Originally posted by The Ryan

Nowehere did the board say that. Bringing a male date would be a homosexual behavior, and is therefore not allowed. There is nothing in any of the quotes to suggest that a straight student wishing to engage in homosexual behavior would be allowed.

You have gone quite mad (besides once again ignoring direct cites given to you).

Esprix

[DMC]

*Originally posted by The Ryan *
If a homosexual wants to take someone of the same sex to a dance, and the Catholic Church objects to it, I think that the reasonable presumption is that they are doing so because of the same sex issue, not the sexuality of the student.

Yes, I would probably find that to be a reasonable assumption. I would, that is, if I were on that particular Catholic school board and wanted to weasel my way out of an issue. Or it might be reasonable on the planet Trafalmador, but here on Earth, I can’t imagine how you can actually make this claim and expect everyone to say “Oh yeah, I buy that.”

**It seems to me that if you are charging discrimination on the basis that they would not have reacted the same way if this student had been straight, the burden of proof is on you to substantiate the claim. **

The burden of proof might rest on us, if your above quote were actually true.

Have you actually read the article linked in the OP? It certainly seems like you haven’t.

[Phoenix_Dragon]

*Originally posted by The Ryan *
**
Nowehere did the board say that. Bringing a male date would be a homosexual behavior, and is therefore not allowed. There is nothing in any of the quotes to suggest that a straight student wishing to engage in homosexual behavior would be allowed. **

Well while we’re here, care to explain how not allowing someone to bring a date of the same gender because they’re “engaging in homosexual behavior” is NOT discrimination? Anyone?

[The_Ryan]

*Originally posted by Northern Piper *
You’re quite right, of course. What could I have possibly been thinking? Why would I have posted those quotations?

I don’t understand why you think that sarcasm is appropiate. I don’t see a logical connection between the quotes and a position that you have been advancing. Apparently, you prefer imitating late show hosts to clarifying a debate.

1. The quotations show that the school’s decision was based on the student’s sexual orientation, a prohibited ground of discrimination under the Ontario Human Rights Code

How? Nowhere is there any clear, direct mention of sexual orientation. I ask why you think this supports your position, and your response is basically “Because it supports my position. Duh.”

Esprix:

You have gone quite mad (besides once again ignoring direct cites given to you).

The fact that I said that I do not think that the quotes prove Northern Piper’s position shows quite clearly that I acknowledge their existence, so I am definitely not ignoring them. I am simply disagreeing with NP’s interpretation of them.

DMC

Yes, I would probably find that to be a reasonable assumption. I would, that is, if I were on that particular Catholic school board and wanted to weasel my way out of an issue. Or it might be reasonable on the planet Trafalmador, but here on Earth, I can’t imagine how you can actually make this claim and expect everyone to say “Oh yeah, I buy that.”

So making accusations out of thin air is more reasonable? If someone says “I won’t allow homosexuals to take same sex partners to the dance”, I really don’t see how “I would allow heterosexuals to take same sex partners to the dance” is a reasonable inference to make. Can you explain that to me?

The burden of proof might rest on us, if your above quote were actually true.

Unless you actually think I am lying about where I believe the burden of proof lies, you must admit the quote absolutely is true.

Phoenix Dragon

Well while we’re here, care to explain how not allowing someone to bring a date of the same gender because they’re “engaging in homosexual behavior” is NOT discrimination?

Asked and answered.

So, let’s see: we’ve had a sarcastic response to a sincere request for clarification, a repetition (without any support) of a position which I have made quite clear I do not agree with (and for which I asked for support), aspersions on my mental health, an outright lie, a presentation of a baseless accusation as “reasonable”, an implication that I am lying, and a question which clearly ignores the previous posts of the thread. I guess this is about par for GD.

[Northern_Piper]

I think it’s about time for Deceased Equine to post.

[Phoenix_Dragon]

*Originally posted by The Ryan *
Asked and answered.

Where?

You’ve danced around the issue the whole post, but you still havn’t addressed the issue. Not letting a homosexual person take a date of their choice, while letting heterosexuals take dates of their choice, is discrimination. Instead, you’re saying that since heterosexuals can’t take same-sex dates, they aren’t “really” discriminating against gays, and that a gay guy can take a date of his choice, just so long as it’s someone of the opposite gender. I don’t think that the gender that the heterosexuals dates are makes any difference in this case. It’s like “equal rights not special rights” all over again. How is that not discrimination?

AND: If you still think this isn’t discrimination against sexual orientation, then it is, at the least, discrimination on the basis of gender. They’re denying someone a service based upon their (And/or their date’s, depending on which person you want to address) gender. Well?