From the Book Of Sequels-TV Guide Section
Slaughterhouse 5-0
Billy Pilgrim and his sidekick, Kilgore Trout, investigate a stolen-car ring and discover that aliens from the planet Tralfamadore have been making off with every last Studebaker left on earth.
It seemed to me that everyone engaged in the discussion except yourself, TheRyan, drew a clear, if inferred, connection between the state of being gay, as posited in the OP, the sexual orientation which most people connect with the idea of being gay, i.e., same-sex attraction, and the conclusion that he was being discriminated against on the basis of sexual orientation for being prohibited from taking a date of his choice, i.e., his boyfriend, to the prom, while his heterosexual fellow students were permitted to take a date of their choice, i.e., someone of the opposite sex. What part of that, if any, do you not find stated outright by posters or a reasonable inference from what they said?
And yet you proceed to argue against my explanation of why this is discrimination. How can you argue against my explanation of why this is not discrimination, and insist that I have provided no such explanation in the very same post? Okay, so you don’t think I have provided a compelling explanation. But don’t pretend that I have not presented any at all.
While the thought behind this statement may be true (I am not a mind reader, so I don’t know), the statement itself is clearly false. Suppose there is a school that requires that dates be no older than 20 years old, and a heterosexual student wants to take a nineteen year old to the prom, and a homosexual wants to take a twenty four year old. Do you seriously expect me to believe that this is an example of discrimination?
What do you mean? Are you saying that if a heterosexual person were to ask to take someone of the same sex, you would expect the school to allow that? While you are free to believe that, I do not see how what you would or would not expect has any relevance to this debate.
Why do you keep asking that? First of all, I have already answered that. Secondly, simply repeating “How am I not right? How am I not right?” does not constitute an argument.
I don’t understand why you’re asking this. All of what you said was at least implied by other posters. So what? Are you trying to establish an argumentum ad populum?
Discrimination against what? Not against sexual orientation, in this case. But one could make an argument about age discrimination, and would quite likely win (At least here in the US; In fact, I vaguely recall a case exactly like your hypothetical there, and it won). No different than restricting someone’s date because of their gender (Discrimination based upon sex) or because of the dates’ relative gender (Discrimination based upon sex and/or sexual orientation).
Further, the comments by the staff of the school in question make it clear that the decision is because they don’t want to allow homosexual couples (Or “activity”) in the event. Seems pretty clear to me.
No, that’s not what I’m saying. What I’m saying is that the heterosexuals choice in dates’ gender DOES NOT MATTER in this case.
And simply saying “I’ve already answered that” doesn’t constitute an argument, either. WHERE have you answered it? I sure don’t see it anywhere. If you have answered it, it shouldn’t trouble you too much to point out where.
I keep repeating that because you don’t get it, and are completely avoiding answering anything I (And many others) say, instead accusing other posters of logical fallacies, lying, etc. Let me try some hypothetical examples for you, and see if you get any of these:
“Anyone can come to the event, so long as they believe in god. Discrimination against atheists? Of course not, they’re perfectly welcome to come. If they believe in god, of course. We’re just holding them to the same standard as everyone else. After all, not believing in god is wrong, and we don’t want to encourage that.”
“Anyone can come to the event, so long as they’re white. Discrimination against other races? Of course not, they’re perfectly welcome to come. If they’re white, of course. We’re just holding them to the same standard as everyone else. After all, white’s are best.”
“Anyone can come to the event, so long as they’re male. Discrimination against women? Of course not, they’re perfectly welcome to come. If they’re male, of course. And none of those transexuals, either We’re just holding them to the same standard as everyone else. After all, men are the stronger sex.”
So since you seem to be so convinced you’ve answered how it’s not discrimination when you replace any of these with gays and their choice of same-sex dates, maybe you can explain these? And if you’re going to call foul and say they’re strawmen, explain the differences between these three examples and the topic of this thread.
Ryan, you make my head hurt.
Esprix
I’d just like to remind everyone that Esprix messing up coding is a sign of the Apocalypse-
Revelations 40:09
Yea and I looked and I did behold God’s messenger. He was wrapped in the light of the rainbow and his raiment was like unto a rainbow. Upon his breast he wore the insignia of a triangle. In a voice of lightning, the messenger called upon the magic of heaven. Yet, his wisdom did fail him. Yet, his power did fail him. The words of power worked no magic. Then did the fish with many heads (Polycarp??) speak unto me. "Know this is the ninth sign of the ending of creation. Mark it well. Fail not to see it when it doth come to pass.
On the upside-At least I can post to the SDMB from my survival bunker.
There were, TheRyan, a number of us attempting to make the case that:
(a) In most cases, a high school student’s definition of “a date of one’s choice” implies one with whom one has romantic or at least cryptosexual interest.
(b) To prohibit this person, of “gay” orientation, from bringing “his boyfriend” (quotes based on the cite in the OP) to the prom is an act prohibiting him from bringing a date of the same sex.
© Heterosexual students would, by (a), generally bring dates of the opposite sex, it being understood from the definition that heterosexuality implies a romantic or cryptosexual interest in the opposite sex. Dates “of one’s choice” for them would normally be opposite-sex, not same-sex, persons.
(d) The statutes of Ontario prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
(e) In conclusion from the above, prohibiting Marc from bringing “a date of his choice” to the aforementioned prom appears to be discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in violation of the statutes of the Province of Ontario.
I will concede that it is theoretically possible that a homosexual student might choose to take a date of the opposite sex and that a heterosexual student might choose to take a date of the same sex. But this is unlikely, and not within the definition I’ve tried to pin down of “a date of one’s choice” as “a person one chooses to date on the basis of romantic interest” (or, possibly, out of a desire to have sex with him or her without a romantic interest being involved, a stipulation I’ve been careful to make in order to cover all bases).
Somehow you are arguing against that chain of logic. What specific flaw(s) do you see in it?
TheRyan: Suppose I start a company and declare that I will not employ anyone who menstruates ( on the grounds that I find menstruation an unpleasant phenomenon). Do you think I could defend myself against a charge of sexual discrimination on the basis that I am not discriminating against women but only against people who menstruate?
Doc, you weren’t supposed to tell! Now everyone will know! Duh! :rolleyes:
Esprix
Now wait a minnit!!! 
So do you agree your statement was wrong?
Which is it? Homosexual people, or homosexual activity?
I’m really confused. If a heterosexual can bring some one of the opposite sex, but not of the same sex, then the heterosexuals choice does matter. What do you mean when you say it doesn’t.
What are you talking about? You personally said
So you paraphrase my statement, and then you insist that you can’t find it. Clearly, you have seen it. That or else you’re psychic or something.
I’m not avoiding answering everything you say. Just because I don’t say “gosh! I agree with you now” doesn’t mean I’m ignoring you.
That’s people they are lying and making logical fallacies.
All of them are of the form:
“Anyone can come to the event, so long as they [aren’t x]. Discrimination against ? Of course not, they’re perfectly welcome to come. If they [aren’t x], of course. We’re just holding them to the same standard as everyone else. After all, [being x] is wrong, and we don’t want to encourage that.”
So if we put in “homoseuxal”, it becomes:
“Anyone can come to the event, so long as they aren’t homosexual.”
Now, can you find any quote, any smigden of evidence that homosexual are not allowed to attend the prom?
I’m sure in your mind, it makes perfect sense, but here, reading what you wrote, here’s what I see: Marc wants to take a guy to the prom. The school will not allow him to take this guy to the prom. Marc is homosexual. Therefore, the school is discriminating against homosexuals.
This logic (note, I’m discussing your logic here, not your conclusion) makes as much sense as “I want to take a gun to school. The school won’t let me do it. I’m a member of the NRA. Therefore, the school discriminates against members of the NRA.”
In (e), you state “In conclusion from the above, prohibiting Marc from bringing “a date of his choice” to the aforementioned prom appears to be discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in violation of the statutes of the Province of Ontario”. Yet your chain never established that there was discrimination. No discrimination, no discrimination, no discrimination… then boom! discrimination. That’s not logic. That’s simply stating your conclusion.
No.
Homosexuals may attend the prom. They may not, however, bring the date of their choice, which would, in the vast majority of cases, be a member of the same sex.
Heterosexuals may attend the prom. They may, however, bring the date of their choice, which would, in the vast majority of cases, be a member of the opposite sex.
The Ryan, if you do not think this is discrimination, please explain what you think it is.
Esprix
Sheesh. Are you trying to avoid a logical answer, or can you just not wrap your head around a complex topic?
No. The age of the date has nothing to do with the person’s orientation. The GENDER of that date does. If the school is barring a date because of that gender, then they are discriminating against his orientation (In addition to gender discrimination).
And in any case, I don’t see how saying it’s a different kind of discrimination (While still being discrimination) helps your case in any way.
Either. Both. It doesn’t matter. Discriminating against homosexual people or homosexual activity is still discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Can you understand that?
In this specific case, the school has stated that homosexuality is wrong, and they don’t want to condone it in any way. So the precice answer would be “both.”
It would if that were the case. However, NOTHING has been said about heterosexuals brining same-sex dates. 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. They specifically made their decision because he was gay. Therefor, their rules for heterosexuals is irrelevant.
And, as I’ve said before, even if they did make the rule that nobody could take same-sex dates, they would at least be discriminating based upon gender, and most likely would be found to be discriminating based upon sexual orientation. Again, even if you were to somehow semantically argue away the bit about sexual orientation, it’s still discrimination.
I was asking you to explain how that’s not discrimination. Or is that the whole entirety of your argument? If so, then address the hypotheticals that I presented (Which, I notice, you did not).
All those examples, and you can’t even read them right? Or are you intentionally being dishonest?
In any case, you phrased the “form” wrong, so that you could claim it to be on your side.
“Anyone can come to the event, so long as they [are/behave opposite of x]. Discrimination against ? Of course not, they’re perfectly welcome to come. If they [are/behave opposite of x], of course. We’re just holding them to the same standard as everyone else. After all, [being x] is wrong, and we don’t want to encourage that.”
Pay attention to the tense of the wording. None of the “so long as they —” phrases identify the group being discriminated against, but instead identify either a behavior or a characteristic of the group being discriminated against. For example, requireing the lack of belief in god for the athiests, requiring white skin for blacks, and requireing them to be male for women. In none of those cases do they explicitly say that (athiests/blacks/women) are not allowed, but the fact of the matter is quite clear. Can you see what I’m saying now? And just to clarify:
Since you accuse me of not readinging the thread thoroughly, I’ll point you to the OP:
Sounds pretty clear to me that the boyfriend is not being allowed to attend. I eagerly await to see what kind of semantics game you can play to try and say that isn’t so.
It’s a silly rule which the school, as a private institution, has every right to make.
Are you unable to make an argument without resorting to personal attacks, or do you just like to distracrt people from the real issues?
But your original statement did not say anything about barring a date because of gender.
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.
Just because I don’t agree with it does not mean that I don’t understand it. They are not the same thing.
me
Esxprix
Polycarp
DMC
Northern Piper:
I’m sure you won’t actually admit that you’re wrong, and instead accuse me of playing some semantic game.
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.
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:
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.
And yet again you lie. I did address the hypotheticals. Simply because I did not address them in the manner you wanted, that does not mean I did not address them.
I took an EXACT QUOTE of your analogy, and replaced the specific references with brackets. An EXACT QUOTE.
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.
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”.
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. It is therefore tantamount to discrimination on the basis of his sexual orientation.
Okay, if Our Lady of Perpetual Bingo Parochial School in Anywhere USA chooses to ban gay students from doing anything that would validate their orientation publicly, that is their right and privilege. Why? Because they are private institutions, funded by the parish and by tuition paid by parents, independent of state control except insofar as they must comply with state requirements regarding safety, curriculum, and other such valid police powers and state rights regarding the quality and content of education provided by a school operating in that state.
The case here is quite different. This school is operating in Canada, under a law providing for state funding for educational institutions run by church denominations and making them subject to rules regarding discrimination.
If the Whites R Us Baptist Church in some backwoods US community chooses to run their school with only “students of the white race” admitted, that is their privilege, and everything up to the 14th Amendment to the contrary is not applicable – because they are a private institution. (But they better not take any public money, or the laws come into play.)
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. It is not permitted to violate the Canadian and Ontario Constitutions by discriminating in manners forbidden under them – and that explicitly includes sexual orientation.
Now do you see the line I’m drawing, and why I’ve been arguing with you on the points you’ve been making?