The Ryan, 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)?
Esprix
As has been very patiently explained, again and again and again, the school (and the school board) are not private institutions. It is a public institution, funded by the taxpayer, run by the government, subject to government rules.
I’m curious as to how much attention you’ve been paying to other people’s posts if you managed to miss this rather crucial fact.
That has not been proven.
Aren’t policies against homosexuality of form of teaching their faith?
You don’t seem to be doing anything but repeating points that I have already challenged.
RickJay
I have not missed that claim. However, the fact that they receive public funding does not automatically mean they are a public institution.
No, I suppose they may have made their decision on the basis that they don’t like the way his ears stick out, or because he didn’t ace his Math final. But it sure appears to be pretty clear from the OP, unless you want to invoke phi or the Devil Raccoons of Luna shooting mind rays to come up with alternative reasons they might have said what they are alleged to have said.
I’m surprised at your saying this. “Homosexuality” is an abstract noun with specific meanings. There are specific things which the Catholic Church teaches are sinful that fall within the general ambit of those definitions, but I doubt strongly that the young man of the OP and his boyfriend are proposing to commit them in the middle of the prom dance floor.
No, no, no, Polycarp - any reasonable person (read: The Ryan) understands that “homosexuality” refers to any activity between any two men of any age - just like when a male pederast rapes a male child. ( :rolleyes: ) Just by dancing together - nay, being seen in the same room together - they would obviously be engaging in “homosexual conduct,” because it would be two men. Don’t you see that? Do I have to explain it again?
Esprix
Esprix: …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)?
Actually, this gives me a great idea for a civil-disobedience tactic in schools that have such policies. Have the school’s chapter of Gay-Straight Alliance or some such gay-friendly group arrange “date swaps”, where male-female couples who were planning to attend the prom together exchange “official” partners so that boys attend with boys and girls with girls. (You can dance with whomever you want and take whomever you want out to the makeout party at Overlook Point afterwards, but you have to arrive at and leave the dance with your same-sex “date” and refer to him/her as your date for the prom.) What’s the school gonna do? Tell fifty or sixty students that they’re not allowed to attend (especially when the authorities know that most of them aren’t actually homosexual)? Heh-heh-heh.
Kimstu
(who still sort of regrets the fact that her state finally struck down its old homophobically-inspired law banning oral sex before she managed to organize a big protest group to go down to the police station and turn ourselves in for breaking it. I was going to call it the “Come Clean Campaign.” Heh-heh-heh. :))
Perhaps your definition of a “public institution” differs from mine, but I would think the government’s line of elementary and high schools is as public an institution as any.
I realize you are not Canadian and thus I can forgive your ignorance in this matter, because our system is unique and does not have an American counterpart. Catholic schools in Ontario are not private schools in any way or any sense of the term. They are public schools. We basically have TWO public school systems; the “public” system, (which used to be called the Protestant system) and the “separate” system. Both are public school systems in exactly the same way your local public school system is. Both must accept all students that apply. Both are fully funded by provincial taxation and property taxes. Both must teach a standard provincially determined curriculum. Both must hire teachers in accordance with provincial qualification criteria. Both must uphold the same basic set of standards as outlined in the Education Act. They have equivalent grade structures, credit systems, and diplomas. Neither charges tuition. The one and only difference is that the separate school boards are allowed to teach Catholic doctrine in addition to teaching the government-required curriculum. In no way whatsoever could they POSSIBLY be defined as being a “private institution.”
I have, in fact, explained why they are allowed to make this (obviously discriminatory) decision; because in Canada, some forms of discrimination are legal, and this is one of them. The Constitution specifically states that separate school boards may do this sort of thing, because that is quite literally why they were created.
Um… Which statement, the one where you were talking about a hypothetical involving the date’s age? Why would I be replying about gender when it’s about age? Or are you talking about a different subject?
And same-sex/opposite-sex both quite clearly refer to gender, anyway.
Oh, so if one can’t show it to be discrimination based on a certain condition, it’s automatically not discrimination for ALL conditions? Make up a new explanation? I mentioned gender discrimination in my first post!
Nice, but you completely avoided addressing what I said in that quote, there. Let me repeat it for you:
Discriminating against homosexual people or homosexual activity is still discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
Well?
big-ass snip
This is one of the reasons I hate it when a discussion gets so cut-up like this, and people start seperating single paragraphs into three or four different quotes…
That was in reference to the SCHOOL, not this THREAD, just as the rest of that paragraph was.
I’m going to have to refer you to several quotes by Northern Piper, who has previously brought up references that you seem to have not addressed, but apply rather well here:
Both of which point out that the reason the boyfriend was not allowed to attend was because of his orientation, and that the school would not allow it because of that.
So that makes it pretty clear: Heterosexual dating is allowed, homosexual dating is not. You say that they are not judging this on their orientation, but the acts associated with their orientation. That is discrimination. And the Supreme Court would agree. I’d like to point you to another of Northern Piper’s (Good stuff you found there 
) references, regarding Brooks v. Canada Safeway, where it was ruled that discrimination based upon pregnancy was discrimination against women since only women can become pregnant. Similarly, discrimination based upon homosexual “activities” (Which seems like a rather odd way of saying "dating another guy) is discriminating against homosexuals because only homosexuals conduct “homosexual activites.”
See above.
Oh yes. An exact quote. With some things changed. Right.
I wasn’t saying that the part you quoted was wrong, it was the parts you replaced that were wrong. Your variables did not match up with the tense and conditions of the original hypotheticals. Basically, you changed it so that they would be to your favor.
No, my hypothetical, extended to this situation would be that only heterosexual dating is allowed. Homosexuals would be allowed to bring their dates, but only if it were a heterosexual (male-female) dating. Or: Only behavior is allowed. [Y] people (Who conduct [Y] behavior and only [Y] behavior) would be allowed, but only if they conduct behavior. To once again use the atheist example: Only believers in god are allowed. Athiests would be allowed, but only if they are believers in god.
As I showed above, discrimination against and act or behavior that is an intrinsic part of a condition is discrimination against that condition (Condition seems like a rather poor word in this sense, but the point should be clear).
To use the quote above again:
The school refused to let the boyfriend attend because it would be homosexual dating, which is a behavior expressed because he is gay. The fact that the boyfriend is gay is the root cause of him being refused admitance. And as the Brooks v. Canada Safeway case shows, the courts would agree.
What you’re missing, Phoenix, is that “homosexual” doesn’t actually mean homosexual to The Ryan. Er, no, wait - it does. Well, it means a lot more than that. Or not. Or something.
Actually, no one’s really quite sure what he’s talking about.
Esprix
Yep, I think you’re right…
And just to actually quote (again) from the article referenced in the OP:
Please note the phrase “gay couple.”
Thank you.
Esprix
Let’s see… he wants to take someone of the same sex to the prom. They won’t let him, telling him that they don’t want to take someone of the same sex to the prom. Reasonable conculsion according to Ryan: the reason they wouldn’t allow him to take someone of the same sex is that they don’t like people taking people of the same sex to the prom. Reasonable conclusion according to everyone else: the reason they wouldn’t allow him to take someone of the same sex is not that they don’t like people taking people of the same sex to the prom. Seeing as how they actually said that they don’t like people taking someone of the same sex to the prom, and did not say that they are against just homosexuals taking someone of the same sex to the prom, how is the latter rweasonable, and the former not?
Even if homosexual intercourse is not going to occur at the dance, that doesn’t mean that allowing same sex dating doesn’t encourage it. If the school prohibited people from taking bongs to the prom on the grounds that that would encourage drug use, would “But they’re not going to be actually using the bongs at the dance” be a valid counter argument?
RickJay:
I accede to your greater expertise in this matter. If they are indeed a special public institution, then my statment should be amended to “This is a silly rule which the school, as a special public institution, has the right to make”.
Even if heterosexual intercourse is not going to occur at the dance, that doesn’t mean that allowing opposite sex dating doesn’t encourage it.
Feel free to parse this any damn way you want, but make sure and apply your semantic antics to your statement as well.
Hurray for the Canadian Catholic School System, encouraging sexual intercourse among high school students since 1973. 
No. No, no, no, no, no. You are wrong. I have proof. Please look at this direct quote from the article in the OP:
"Gay couple." Not “same-sex couple” - “gay couple.”
I’m sure you, The Master of Quibbling Semantics, understands the difference between “same-sex couple” and “gay couple,” yes?
Esprix
To further illustrate that difference-
There is no Ask The Same-Sex Guy Thread .
Huh. And I thought that gay people were the same as anybody else, wanting to date someone they were romantically interested in, not just looking to have hot monkey sex.
Why didn’t you clarify this, Esprix?
:rolleyes:
My apologies, Polycarp. I spoke hastily due to the outrage I feel at all the heterosexuals that take members of the same sex to the prom being discriminated against by the school board (those heartless bastards).
Esprix, reiterating your :rolleyes:
Perhaps my addressing you veiled my point, sir. My reference was to the fact that, as ably made clear by TheRyan, the occasion for a gay student wishing to take his boyfriend to the prom was to promote the potential for sex. While I suspect that desiring sex is seldom far from the minds of most young heterosexual men taking dates to dances, in most cases there is, IMHO, also an interest in romance, a desire to have a fulfilling, requited love relationship with the other. Obviously, from TheRyan’s exegesis, this is in fact not the case with gay people, and I would have preferred that you make that point clear in your Ask the Gay Guy threads, as I was under the impression that gay people, like straight people, fell in love and desired meaningful relationships including but not limited to sexual contact. I am however grateful to TheRyan for setting the record straight on this subject.
Poly, seeing your :rolleyes: and raising it a :eek:
DMC:
That’s true. And if the school decided to not allow dates at all, I would have a similar attitude towards that as I do to the current poilicy.
Is there a specific sentence to which you wish me to apply my “semantic antics” (aren’t you the poet?)?
Esprix
Okay, so if they said that, where’s the quote? The article paraphrased the board’s decision. Therefore, debating the exact terms of the paraphrase is pointless, because there is no guarantee that the board in fact used those exact terms, and even if the did, it is not enough to determine what they meant by it. Did they mean a couple composed of gay people (in case a lesbian would not be allowed to take a gay man to the prom), or did they mean a couple who were of the same sex, and therefore composed a gay couple?
As it is not a quote of my statments, my interpretation of the two terms is not relevant. What is relevant is whether the newspaper distinguishes between the two terms, and if so, what their reasons for using the term “gay couple” are.
In one thread, you dishonestly attribute to me positions that I have never taken, yet in another you say that I should respect your opinion. Do you not see these two practices to be at odds with each other?
I inferred your position from the following quote:
Was this not intended, after rotating it from contrapositive to assertion, to imply that allowing same-sex dating would encourage homosexual intercourse? And is it therefore incorrect to pursue your statement to read it as implying that the reason why the young man might want to take his boyfriend to a dance is to have homosexual intercourse? That is the construction I would put on it as a logical inference from your initial contrapositive. However, since you have taken umbrage at people misrepresenting your position (in my case out of sheer inability to see where you’re going with the points you make), I will withdraw any critique of what you seem to be implying if you so desire, awaiting your spelling out in clear English the points you do want to make.
I note on the Pit thread that you have now stated that the point you were trying to make in all this was that there was no discrimination. Several of us have attempted to suggest that the idea that both heterosexual and homosexual students have the right to take opposite-sex but not same-sex dates does in fact constitute discrimination against the homosexual students, by reason of their potential choice in dates, by any reasonable construction of what “no discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation” might mean. I welcome your deconstruction of this logic and look forward to seeing it.