No, no, Poly, I got all that. My :rolleyes: was also intended for The Ryan, not thee.
Esprix
Polycarp
No, you need to look at the context of the statment, which somthing like this:
“The school is not allowing same sex dates to discourage homosexual activity.”
“But the students aren’t planning on having sex at the dance”.
“The fact that sex is is going to occur at the dance does not invalidate their concern.”
To put it more abstractly:
“The school believes A->B”
“But C is not true.”
“C not being true does not mean the (A->B) is false”.
I’m not saying A->B is true, only that it is justified.
I thought we had already gone over this ground. Simply because homosexuals choose to bring dates which are prohibited, while heterosexuals do not, that does mean there is discrimination. But I note that you add the qualification of “by any reasonable construction of what ‘no discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation’ might mean”. So perhaps we should be discussing what that is. I submit that “discrimination”, taken literally, refers simply to discerning or distinction. For instance, a person who is able to tell what year a wine was made is a discriminating wine drinker. However, I do not think myself presumptious in assuming that you do not consider that to be included in your term “any reasonable construction”. My interpretation would be that it would refer to a decision that has as its primary or major basis the sexual orientation of the people involved. The critical question on which all charges of discrimination should depend is “would they treat him differently if he were someone different?” So, in this case, would they have treated this student any differently if he had been a heterosexual student wanting to bring a same sex date? I believe that the answer to that question, barring compelling evidence, if “no”.
So what is your definition?
I’m talking about the statment
You can change my statement “But your original statement did not say anything about barring a date because of gender.” to “But your original statement did not say anything about barring a date because of same-sex/opposite-sex.” if you wish. It would still be true.
No, I’m just saying that if you can’t say “It’s discrimination because of X”, but you have to say “In case a, it’s discrination because of b, in case c it’s discrimination because of d… etc.” then that looks really fishy to me. Implicit in your statement is that it is discrimination in all cases. But if you have to have a new explanation for why it’s discrimination for each case, then I would suspect that perhaps there are cases where none of those reasons would hold.
No, I didn’t. I said “They are not the same thing.” by which I meant that discrimination against homosexual people and homosexual activity are not the same thing.
No it’s not. (Gee, we’re really getting someone here, aren’t we? :rolleyes: ) I think that it should be pretty clear from my previous posats that I do not think that they are the same thing, and that if you wish to convince me otherwise, it will take more than simply stating your opinion.
By putting that portion before the school was mentioned, I thought you were meaning to have it refer to the thread. You are right. The school never mentioned same-sex dates of heterosexuals. Which only bolsters my position that the school does not have a policy for them separate from same-sex dates of homosexuals.
Whether the courts agree with me and whether I am right are two different issues.
As the quotes were lengthy, I will restrict my attention to the parts bolded, as presumably if you had considered another portion important, you would have bolded that as well. The bolded potions are: homosexual dating- clearly referring to activity, not orientation; homosexual lifestyle- again, clearly referring to activity, not orientation; homosexuality- ambiguous, could refer the state of being homosexual (orientation) or practice of being homosexual (activity). Considering that two of the three are clearly not talking about the orientation, and the third is ambiguous, I believe that I am justified in saying that there is not sufficient evidence that orientation, rather than activity, is at issue.
From my point of view, I changed it in the obvoius manner, and it is you that are changing for it to be in his favor.
That does not follow your hypotheticals at all. Your hypotheticals deal with types of people. But now you’re applying it to behavior. Being white is not a behavior. Believing in God is not a behavior. Being male is not a behavior. Dating a person of the opposite sex is a behavior.
But then this is clearly diffent from the issue of homosexuals, because it is by definition impossible for atheists to believe in God (if they did, they wouldn’t be atheists). It is possible, however, for homosexuals to not bring a same sex date. Furthermore, in asking people to believe in God, you’re asking for them to do sometihng, while in asking people to not bring a same sex date, you’re asking them not to do something.
Tell that to Kinsey.
No, if the boyfriend were straight, he wouldn’t want to date this guy, so he never would have asked to be admitted, so either way he wouldn’t be admitted. Furthermore, the root cause is not enough to show discrimination. If a person were unable to come to the dance because they got a flat tire, the flat tire would be the root cause. That doesn’t mean the school discriminates against people with flat tires.
Yeah, the statement doesn’t say anything about gender or same-sex/opposite-sex. It says it was discrimination. What relavance does the lack of mention of gender and/or same-sex/opposite-sex have in ANY way to what I said?
Except that’s not what I said. What I said was that it was “discriminations because of X, and can also be argued to be discrimination because of Y.” Not as an in-case X is invalidated
Okay, we’re finally getting somewhere.
Now then, HOW do you reason that discrimination against homosexual activity is not discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation? Seems to me it’s been broadly accepted to be exactly that, so how do you reason it isn’t?
You’re right, the school never mentioned the dates of heterosexuals. Instead, they specifically mentioned homosexuals. How does that help your argument any?
And you might want to re-phrase your last sentance there. Looks like you’re saying the school has a policy specifically for homosexuals, which would not only be damaging to your argument, very, very in-line with what the school has said, and completely discriminatory.
True, but in the matter of legal decisions, I give the courts much more weight than one person on a message board. Much more likely they know what they’re talking about than you do.
Oh, good. Because taking tiny little bits of a post out-of-context is such an honest way of addressing them.
Once more now, addressing the whole quotes.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I’m changing what you quoted from me in order to be what I originally said, and I’m being accused of changing it dishonestly to be in my favor? Of course it’s a change to be in my favor, the original quote was in my favor. Returning it to what it was before you changed it, does that, you know.
Good grief. I picked “behavior” because it applied well in that case, and since there aren’t many words that fit well (I could have used “condition”. People who exhibit “condition X”. Or maybe just change the variables. Person X who exhibits x, person Y who exhibits y, etc). And in any case, Believing/disbelieving in god can certainly be defined as behavior (Or lack thereof, as the case may be).
I was going to contest this, but I think it might be best to just ignore that one, and instead I’ll give you a better one. Consider the one banning people who are black, because they aren’t white. Well, what if someone painted themselves white? They’d technically be able to attend. Is it not discrimination now, because they aren’t -really- barring blacks, since one obviously got in? And hey, we can even define it as a behavior now! This person is exhibiting the “behavior” of painting themselves white. Others are exhibiting the behavior of not painting themselves white, and are therefor not allowed in. Now, what sort of objection do you have to that scenario (And I know you’re probably going to have one). And is that now not discrimination?
Nice. And an atheist can go to church. What’s your point?
First off, that’s rather irrelavant. Second, if he had been straight, he might have a date with someone of the opposite gender, and therefor might have been admited (Hey, if you want to play all sorts of (il)logic games…). Third, this is a matter of what is happening, not what could have happened. It is in reference to a specific denial, the reason for which was because the school did not want to allow these two gay men to attend as a couple. That is why he is being denied.
Yes, but if that root cause is discriminatory, the overall case is. If someone were denied admittance because, say, their parents are muslim, the root cause of them being denied is their parents being muslim. In this case, it most definatly is discrimination.
I think it is up to you to display how discriminating against homosexual activity is not discriminating against sexual orientation, seeing as this definatly seems to have been judged to not be true.
I suppose TheRyan would not see any problem with the school banning interracial couples at the prom too. After all, such a ban could not possibly be discriminatory, as people of all races would be allowed to attend the prom. They just wouldn’t be allowed to bring dates who were not of their own race. That’s not being racist, it’s just discouraging miscegenation. :rolleyes:
I do believe my head is about to explode.
Esprix
With no offense intended to anyone, I prefer to terminate any further participation in this thread (other than this note) until a question that I asked in the Pit is answered.
You implied that it was discrimination on the basis of orientation. The lack of this mention contradicts that.
No, you just said that it was discrimination. You never said what type of discrimination it is.
How do you reason that an orange isn’t the same as an apple? It just isn’t. It’s up to you to show that they’re the same, not up to me to show they’re different.
They did not specifically mention heteroseuxals. They presented a policy which we, therefore, have no reason to believe does not apply to heterosexuals. Since they are basing their decision on activitiy, not orientation, that suggests that they are not discriminating on the basis of orientation.
I said
How does not having a separate policy mean that they have a policy specific for homosexuals? If they don’t have a separate policy, that means that any policy they have would be the same, i.e. nondiscrimatory.
My opinion is that this is not discriminatory. I think I know much more than some judges I have never met what my opinion is.
What? Was I supposed to address the whole quote? “Gee, I don’t see any supporting evidence for their claim that Suzanne Scorsone is a spokeswoman for the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Toronto”? If there is some other portion you wish me to address, then tell me what it is. But keep in mind for the future, that if you present me with a quote with a portion bolded, I will address the majority of my focus to the bolded portion.
No. You presented several situations, with the implication that if they were changed to discuss homosexuality, they would support your position. So some change was required (because none of them discussed homosexuality). Are you with me so far? I made that change in a manner that I found reasonable. You accused me of dishonesty, and I replied that I could just as easily accuse you of dishonesty.
No, the original said nothing about homosexuality, and was therefore was irrelevant.
Are you saying that “being white”:“whiteness”::“bringing a same sex date”:“homosexuality”? Because I simply do not agree with that.
Now who’s nitpicking?
For any of the rest to make sense, it must be clarified whether terms such as “white” and “black” refer to skin color or ethnicity.
That’s a rather strained use of “behavior”. Under your logic, the term “behavior” is meaningless, since it applies to everything. Not painting yourself white is a lack of behavior, not a behavior.
That your position contradicts well established facts.
The fact that you’re wrong is irrelevant?
He can still go with someone of the opposite sex.
This comment exhibits an astounding ignorance of what the term “discrimination” means. It is by definition talking about not only what happened but what could have happened. “I’m homosexual, and I wasn’t admitted” is not enough to establish discrimination. “I’m homosexual, and I wasn’t admitted, and I would have been admitted if I had been heterosexual” is.
Yes, if this is a case of discrimination, then it is a case of discrimination. I think I can agree with that.
And if someone were denied admittance because they are gay, that would be discrimination. But if someone is gay and is denied admittance, that’s not discrimination.
I don’t. I think that the school is innocent until proven guilty, not vice versa.
Polycarp, if the question is of such great importance that your continued participation depends on it, I find it odd that you won’t ask it in this thread, or even say what it is.
Since this is all turning into one big word-game for TheRyan, I’m just going to cut it down to the one question of primary relavance, instead of continuing the damn semantics debate.
How do you figure that? Legal precedent seems to be on my side. Discrimination against an activity intriniscaly related to a “condition” (That is, something that can be discriminated against: Age, sex, sexual orientation, race, religion, etc) has been ruled to be discrimination against that “condition”, even if the rules are technically equal for all. Again, look at the Brooks v. Canada Safeway. Looks like it’s your job to prove it isn’t, seeing as it’s commonly accepted to be so.
Do feel free to find it odd.
It was contained in the post I made to the Pit thread which you recently started, and its applicability to my continued participation in this thread ought to be obvious to anyone able to reason logically and infer anything about human behavior and motivations. I presume you have been reading the thread you started?
First of all, “the burden is on you” and “I’ve presented good reasons for why I’m right, so I expect to you to address them” are very different positions. f you’re saying that because so many people agree with you, the burden of proof is on me, then I don’t that’s valid. If you’re saying that the burden normally would be on you, but you have met it, so now the burden is on me, that is another thing entirely.
Now as to the validity of your points: again, I consider judges to be authorities on laws, not morality. If we are discussing whether this is legal, then by all means present legal precedent. If we are discussing whether it is wrong of the school to have this policy, then legal pecedent is merely one point of view among many. To be honest, I’m not entirely certain which of these better characterizes your position.
Furthermore, while I certainly agree that the precedents you cite are relevant, I do not find them binding. I do not think that bringing same sex dates to a prom is intrinsicly related to being homosexual in the same way that being pregnant is intrinsicly related to being female. Homosexuality merely means a propensity for wanting to bringing same sex dates to the prom, while pregnancy is the defining characteristic separating females from males. Homosexuals do not have bodies specifically designed to bring same sex partners to the dance, or bleed every month that they don’t bring a same sex partner to the dance (at least, I hope they don’t), etc. Femininity is a physical state, while homosexuality is defined purely in terms of psychology.
Polycarp:
I thought you were talking about the thread which deals with this thread specifically. Looking at the other thread, you seem to have derived grat distress from my question, or at least more than I believe is warranted, and I’m sorry about that. Whether that is due to a surplus of sensitivity on your part, or a deficit on my part, I am not sure. You can rest assured I am not plotting to have you banned.
Please define “change”. Further debate is impossible until you do so. My definition of change is “1 N The equivalent amount of currency in smaller denominations. 2 N the amount of currency by which a customer has overpaid”
Now please explain what change means to you.I’m saying that current precedent is that this is discrimination. You are coming along and challenging that by saying that everyone else has to justify what is already commonly accepted. You should know that when something commonly accepted in GD is being challenged, it’s up to the challenger to actually bring up relavant arguments instead of just saying “I’m right.” And to top it off, despite this, I have been laying down support for my possition as well, even though it’s the commonly accepted one.
Seems like both, I guess. Laws are generally constructed, in free societies, as a guide for morality. What they are doing would be illegal if it were not for the special rights granted the church in canada, even for its public institutions (That’s what I’ve gathered from this thread, at least). As for right-versus-wrong, it seems pretty wrong to me to deny someone their choice in date because you believe their lifestyle to be evil, and no other reason (And before you argue that, the church has stated, in many cites already presented here, that the rule was adopted to prevent gay couples from attending because they view homosexual activity as a sin). Just as wrong as if they were to ban interracial-dating, or inter-faith dating. Unless you think it would be right to do that, too?
First off, if it’s a requirement to be a physical condition, you’re arguing against such other categories of discrimination such as ethnicity and religion.
And second, you yourself said (here):
If your definition of orientation is behavior in one thread, how can you argue against that same stance in another? And if you still hold that to be true, it seems very clear to me that discrimination against the behavior would, intrinsicly, be discrimination against orientation, since you are saying the behavior defines the orientation. While I would have some disagrement over the logic here, it seems you are holding two opinions that are in conflict with eachother.
I’m still waiting for an answer to this question. IMHO, it is speaks to the crux of the issue. And The Ryan refuses to answer it. Most telling; most telling, indeed…
Esprix
After reading through this entire thread in one sitting, my head hurts. It’s got to be penance for something.
(…Polycarp: Our Lady of Perpetual Bingo???)
The question I am about to ask has already been posed a few times, I believe, but if I may I’d like to pose it in my own way.
The Ryan, I understand that you are making a distinction between homosexual orientation and homosexual conduct, and suggesting that the school is making the same distinction: “we aren’t bothered by homosexuals per se, just by homosexual conduct.”
But I’m curious (and really afraid that, at this late hour, I won’t put this very clearly but I shall try): in your view, how is the homosexual conduct of a professed gay man (or his boyfriend) not intrinsically linked to his homosexual orientation? Or perhaps to ask the question a different way: in your view what constitutes homosexual conduct, and/or what kind of homosexual conduct, if any, would you consider not to be a product of a homosexual orientation?
I do apologize if the questions aren’t clear. If not, let me know and I shall endeavor to better in the morning.
(…Our Lady of Perpetual Bingo!!!..) :eek:
Clarification: in regard to my previous post, I would like to stipulate we are (I think) using the word homosexual according to definitions #1 and/or #2 here, http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=homosexual , as alluded to in an earlier post.
And I’m saying that it’s not. Current precedent is that denying treatment for pregnancy is discrimination.
That’s just a modified version of argumentum ad popolarum.
I never said that it must be a physical condition.
Are laws against murder discrimination against murderers? There is no way to define the term “murderer” other than in terms of behavior, so murdering is intrinsicly related to being a murderer.
Jerevan Somerville
It is and it isn’t intrinsicly related. There is no way to determine whether someone is homosexual except by looking at their behavior, so in that sense they are intrinsicly related. But depriving someone of the opportunity to engage in homosexual conduct is not denying them the opportunity to be homosexual, so in that sense they are not intrinsicly related.
There are two meanings to the term “homosexual conduct”: conduct that is homosexual, and conduct that is done by homosexuals. Some examples of the former would be same sex dating and anal sex (between two men). Some examples of the latter would be a gay man going to the grocery store, and going to a gay bar. For almost all conduct, we can imagine a situation where it is not the product of homosexual orientation. For instance, straight men don’t generally engage in the second example, but in prison some do. And of course the third example, while the conduct of a gay man, is not the product of a homosexual orientation.
Huh? Sure, that’s one current precedent, but it’s only a somewhat-related one. However, I seem to recall several cases where similar activities were discriminated against and it was judged as such (If anyone knows where I could find any information on them, please let me know, I don’t know where to start looking for that kind of thing).
If it were the basis for my argument, sure. But it isn’t. It IS, however, the reason that everyone here expects you to explain your side instead of taking it for granted. The popularity of the position doesn’t enter at all into the actual debate.
Oh, just that it can’t be behavior, hmm? Well, that could still leave religion out.
If it doesn’t have to be a physical condition, than what relavance does femininity being physical and homosexual being psychological have? First you say that can’t be compared because one is physical and one is not, then you say that it doesn’t matter if it’s physical? You need to explain yourself better.
Well, we kind of agree on something. Yes, being a murderer is intrinsicly related to murdering. That’s why someone who murders someone else is called a murderer. But a murderer is also someone who has committed a crime, and in society, breaking the rules of that society involves giving up certain rights, such as the right to freedom. And correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think “murderers” are mentioned anywhere as a class of discrimination.
I’m not going to even go into the rather disgusting and dishonest comparison of a criminal act to homosexuality.
You’re also changing the subject. I didn’t say one damn thing about the behavior of murderers. I mentioned the behavior of homosexuals. And you completely avoided addressing that. So again, since you have yourself related homosexual activity as “defining” homosexuality, how do you then define discrimination against homosexual activity to not be discrimination against homosexuals?
And since you avoided the question last time, what about inter-racial dating or inter-faith dating? Do you think barring inter-racial or inter-faith couples would be discriminatory? And if so, how do you explain that as being different from same-sex dating?
You also seem to have avoided any entrance into the right-versus-wrong bit that you yourself brought up. Since you brought it up, try at least being decent and addressing the topic when it’s returned to you. Just so you don’t have to scroll back up, I’ll copy-and-paste the relavant bit right here:
As for right-versus-wrong, it seems pretty wrong to me to deny someone their choice in date because you believe their lifestyle to be evil, and no other reason (And before you argue that, the church has stated, in many cites already presented here, that the rule was adopted to prevent gay couples from attending because they view homosexual activity as a sin).
If you can’t provide the cases, then I have no obligation to accept them.
You are using the fact that many people disagree with me as a point against me. That is a modified version of argumentum ad popolarum. It’s not the basis of your argument, but it is part of your argument.
Then why do you keep bringing it up?
I don’t think this is going anywhere. Let me just say that you are grossly misunderstanding my position and leave it at that.
Because you’re trying to say they are equivalent, and they’re not.
I didn’t say that no comparison can be made. I simply disagreed with a specific comparison.
Well, we kind of agree on something. Yes, being a murderer is intrinsicly related to murdering. That’s why someone who murders someone else is called a murderer. But a murderer is also someone who has committed a crime, and in society, breaking the rules of that society involves giving up certain rights, such as the right to freedom. And correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think “murderers” are mentioned anywhere as a class of discrimination.
I’m not going to even go into the rather disgusting and dishonest comparison of a criminal act to homosexuality.
You’re also changing the subject. I didn’t say one damn thing about the behavior of murderers. I mentioned the behavior of homosexuals. And you completely avoided addressing that. So again, since you have yourself related homosexual activity as “defining” homosexuality, how do you then define discrimination against homosexual activity to not be discrimination against homosexuals?
And since you avoided the question last time, what about inter-racial dating or inter-faith dating? Do you think barring inter-racial or inter-faith couples would be discriminatory? And if so, how do you explain that as being different from same-sex dating?
You also seem to have avoided any entrance into the right-versus-wrong bit that you yourself brought up. Since you brought it up, try at least being decent and addressing the topic when it’s returned to you. Just so you don’t have to scroll back up, I’ll copy-and-paste the relavant bit right here:
As for right-versus-wrong, it seems pretty wrong to me to deny someone their choice in date because you believe their lifestyle to be evil, and no other reason (And before you argue that, the church has stated, in many cites already presented here, that the rule was adopted to prevent gay couples from attending because they view homosexual activity as a sin). **
[/QUOTE]