Ontario has voted 'no' to accrediting Trinity University Law P

[WestCoastRunner]

No it is not your point. You keep whinging about TWU wanting to ban gays when it is clearly not true. When I pointed out that it is about sex acts you get all huffy because I guess that you understand that protesting a ban on sex acts is harder to do than protesting a ban on gay couples (which it is not).

I guess I could see your point if being married and gay was about sex. I see it as more about building a long term committed relationships.

WTF. It is clearly about banning gays.

[TimG]

WTF. It is clearly about banning gays.

You clearly can't read English. That is not what it says. It bans sex acts. Edited April 30, 2014 by TimG

[-1=e^ipi]

Get over it? That's not what Canada is about. We seek to obtain equal rights for all people in Canada.

And what about freedom of thought, expression, belief or religion?

A large segment of the population believes in ridiculous, misogynistic, homophobic faerie tales. I would rather that this segment of the population feel free to express their crazy beliefs so society knows who these people are, what they believe and can engage with them in open dialogue. I fail to see how silencing different viewpoints through coercion (such as not accrediting a private university cause of its beliefs) will be beneficial to society in the long run.

Edit: and can you please define 'what Canada is about'?

Edited April 30, 2014 by -1=e^ipi

[-1=e^ipi]

It is wrong to allow this University to demand their students sign this covenant.

Why? It's not publicly funded and no one is forced to go to this University.

We don't want to go down the road of the U.S.'s religious prejudical education system.

You mean like how many provinces have a catholic school system? Maybe we should get rid of that.

Let's look at it from a canadian human rights perspective. Let's do the right thing for Canada.

The 'right thing' is to bad students from an institution from being accredited because of their beliefs? How very Orwellian of you...

It's about protecting canadian rights and beliefs.

What are these 'beliefs' that Canada has (if a country can even have beliefs)?

Have you been brainwashed by our education system or something?

[bleeding heart]

We know that Tim's preposterous "sodomy" argument is fallacious; even if we take it face value, we also know that "sodomy" is committed more often between heterosexual couples than by homosexual couples. (not percentage-wise, perhaps, but in real numbers)

I hasten to add that I'm inclined to agree that Trinity has the right to make its rules according to its sniveling bigotry....I think the arguments made for this on this thread are very strong.

But let's not pretend that Trinity's stance is not explicitly about the "sinfulness" of homosexuality....and has nothing specifically to do with sex acts...especially oral sex, which the overwhelming majority of heterosexuals not only perform, but believe is perfectly fine.

[TimG]

But let's not pretend that Trinity's stance is not explicitly about the "sinfulness" of homosexuality....and has nothing specifically to do with sex acts...especially oral sex, which the overwhelming majority of heterosexuals not only perform, but believe is perfectly fine.

Please point to any public statement by TWU officials that supports your interpretation of the extremely vague statement. Without such a statement you are basically making crap up because you cannot possibly know what was intended by those words. I read the statement and I see it as a ban on sex acts that don't involve sticking boy parts into lady parts just like nature intended. That would include a ban on oral sex and it would apply equally to hetros and gays. That said, I don't know either - the point of this line of argument it to show how critics are reading meaning into the words that is not there to rationalize their personal prejudice against religion based value systems.

Here is a legal analysis of the covenant that looks at footnotes that contain references to scriptures:

http://leeakazaki.com/2014/03/10/reading-the-twu-community-covenant-as-contract/

Although, it does not support my specific reading of the phrase it does point out that the referenced passage Proverbs 6:23-25 is a ban on adultery that has nothing to do with gays. There is also a reference to Romans 1:26-27 which describes homosexuality as a 'vile affliction' which people cannot control. More importantly, Romans 1:26-27 does not say that homosexuality violates the 'sacredness of marriage' which again implies the clause has nothing to do with banning gays.

Given the Biblical context provided by that link I would say that the intent of the clause is a ban on adultery when a man is married to woman which would imply that adultery by gay people is fine. The latter loop hole exists because gays could not be married when the text was originally written.

Edited April 30, 2014 by TimG

[bleeding heart]

Uh...please point to any public statement by TWU officials that supports your interpretation of the extremely vague statement...since you made the claim before I did.

And note that specific sexual acts are not mentioned....but the "sacred"ness of heterosexual marriage is plainly stated...and plainly implies the opposite for homosexual marriage.

And like I said, they have every right to be silly little bigots...just as we have the right to call them on it.

[TimG]

Uh...please point to any public statement by TWU officials that supports your interpretation of the extremely vague statement...since you made the claim before I did.

Why? My argument is that multiple interpretations exist and acknowledge that I don't know for sure what was the intent. You are the one insisting that my interpretation must be wrong which means that the onus is on you to show that a ban on gays was the intent of the wording. I added text to my post that further refutes the claim that the intent of the phrase was to discriminate against gays.

And note that specific sexual acts are not mentioned....but the "sacred"ness of heterosexual marriage is plainly stated...and plainly implies the opposite for homosexual marriage.

I added more to my post above that explains that violating "sacred"ness of heterosexual marriage appears to be about adultery - not gays.

[bleeding heart]

The fact that they spell out "heterosexual marriage" means it is about gay marriage too--as adultery, as some religious folk would determine it.

And your interpretation indeed differs from mine--because I base mine on trivial matters like the words they use, while you base yours on....some phantom, not present in the words they use.

[TimG]

And your interpretation indeed differs from mine--because I base mine on trivial matters like the words they use, while you base yours on....some phantom, not present in the words they use.

Your interpretation is most definitely NOT based on the words they use. It is based entirely on your prejudices and preconceptions.

There is nothing is the words themselves that say that gay relationships are banned - at most most it means gay sex acts are banned. The reference to the scripture suggests it is all about adultery and the man and women thing simply states the conditions when adultery can take place.

Your position that the statement represents a ban on gay relationships is simply unsupportable if one goes only by what is written.

Edited April 30, 2014 by TimG

[bleeding heart]

Tim,

They said their views were based on the "sacred"ness of heterosexual marriage. The obvious omission is not only clear, it's intentional.

And, as I said (and which you ignored), "sodomy" among heterosexual couples is not only the norm...it occurs with monumentally more frequency than it does in homosexual relationships, thanks to sheer numbers alone. So that argument's a non-starter based on the uncontroversial truisms with which you and I undoubtedly agree.

Again, your interepretation is not based on what they've said....it's based on....well, nothing at all.

But what's more interesting to me at the moment is your perverse need to make every debate about my baleful weaknesses....and my "prejudices and preconceptions" (you don't seem to think that "gayness is bad" is a prejudice or a preconception, for...some reason, unstated).

You can not debate me--ever, on a single subject--without commenting on [my] "prejudices and preconceptions," on which all my arguments, without exception, it would appear, are "based entirely."

That's on your good days. On your bad days, you like to tell me that I "don't care about rape" and other such sober reflections.

I bring it up because this has become an obvious reflex for you, to make every debate about me, personally; needless to say, many of us sometimes come to similar conclusions about other posters, but after brief consideration, decide that it adds nothing to debate.

If you ever bothered to read and consider other posters' arguments, rather than erupting with sanctimony and an implied self-indulgence, you might learn something.

It's one thing if it happens now and then; but when it's all you got, well, it maybe speaks for itself.

Edited April 30, 2014 by bleeding heart

[Michael Hardner]

I hasten to add that I'm inclined to agree that Trinity has the right to make its rules according to its sniveling bigotry....I think the arguments made for this on this thread are very strong.

I think that in time religious bigotry will decline, especially as many religions update their values to reflect the times. Orthodox prohibitions against 'sodomy' will seem out-of-place and backwards as they are.

But let's not pretend that Trinity's stance is not explicitly about the "sinfulness" of homosexuality....and has nothing specifically to do with sex acts...especially oral sex, which the overwhelming majority of heterosexuals not only perform, but believe is perfectly fine.

I agree with you, but you have to give them the benefit of the doubt. In any case, I defer to your point #1.

[bleeding heart]

We can give them the "benefit of the doubt"...but we also see that they've omitted "homosexual marriage" from their "sacred" point on their magical scale; and we also know (uncontroversially) that more "sodomy," and by a terrific measure, occurs among heterosexual couples than homosexual ones.

Giving them the "benefit of the doubt" is to assume they're not moronic children, and taking their words at face value.

We know that they aren't obviously interested in "specific sexual acts," but that they are obviously interested in homosexuality.

So why would they single out homosexuality...rather than going after the bigger culprit: heterosexual relationships, in which most of the cases of sodomy occur...and which makes up a greater part of their captive audience, over which they have more influence?

[cybercoma]

"Ok" ?And the questions of enforcing this policy are something else entirely.

it was a pointed question that strikes at the heart of what you're defending.

[guyser]

A: Gay marriage has nothing to do with a schools academic qualifications.

B: Religious organizations can refuse to marry whoever they want.

C: The SC decision established Trinity's rights. They can't be taken away by legislation.

It does when it discriminates. They are saying hetero married can do it, but not gays. Pure and simple really

True. So what?

It did I agree. But then again, no one is taking anything away are they? The Grads can still practice whereever and when ever they want. Thats a fact.

[guyser]

Anyone who thinks the clause 'sanctity blah blah marriage betw a man and woman' is not a direct effort to discriminate/ban against gays is truly a fool.

Why bother putting the man and woman words in there?

And again, no one is denying the schools grads from being lawyers.

[Michael Hardner]

it was a pointed question that strikes at the heart of what you're defending.

No, it was a very blunt and obtuse question. It was unspecific.

What does "It's OK" mean exactly ?

It could mean...

It's legal

It's moral

It's ethical

I would do it

I wouldn't do it, but I would defend to the death the right to do it

I wouldn't do it, but I would defend to the flesh wound the right to do it

I feel like I'm so often repeating myself here, and that many posters think that if you argue for the right to discriminate you think that it's personally ok to do so.

It seems to me that achieving the first degree of posting acumen for people here is to argue a point objectively.

[bleeding heart]

Yes, guyser, you're right; the "man and woman" bit is a pointed remark. They couldn't have been more clear about their intent.

And again, I agree they have the right to do this.

What this right has to do with my criticism of morally-cretinous bigotry has yet to be spelled out satisfactorily.

Edited April 30, 2014 by bleeding heart

[cybercoma]

No, it was a very blunt and obtuse question. It was unspecific.

What does "It's OK" mean exactly ?

It could mean...

It's legal

It's moral

It's ethical

I would do it

I wouldn't do it, but I would defend to the death the right to do it

I wouldn't do it, but I would defend to the flesh wound the right to do it

I feel like I'm so often repeating myself here, and that many posters think that if you argue for the right to discriminate you think that it's personally ok to do so.

It seems to me that achieving the first degree of posting acumen for people here is to argue a point objectively.

For someone who claims the question was blunt and obtuse, maybe you should take a minute to think about your response. Are you really going to sit here and play semantics with the word "OK"? It's abundantly clear what was being asked and why it was being asked. It's also pretty offensive that you or anyone for that matter would defend the school having these policies.

[cybercoma]

Yes, guyser, you're right; the "man and woman" bit is a pointed remark. They couldn't have been more clear about their intent.

And again, I agree they have the right to do this.

What this right has to do with my criticism of morally-cretinous bigotry has yet to be spelled out satisfactorily.

They most certainly don't have the right. Human Rights legislation across the country makes it clear. If you offer a service to the public, then you cannot discriminate based on who that person marries.

[Michael Hardner]

For someone who claims the question was blunt and obtuse, maybe you should take a minute to think about your response. Are you really going to sit here and play semantics with the word "OK"?

Yes, we are. I have been in far too many arguments on here where I found out later that the poster has no idea what it means to argue objectively. Saying "this is ok" is far too vague for me to debate it.

I'm not ok with discrimination, or with all forms of free speech but I think that some of them should be allowed.

It's abundantly clear what was being asked and why it was being asked.

"Clarity" like "OK"ness is subjective.

It's also pretty offensive that you or anyone for that matter would defend the school having these policies.

Well, ok. Maybe you don't understand objectivity either. Rights are abstract principles or axioms, and not offensive on their own only in their application.

Do you like Noam Chomsky ? He wrote an introduction to an offensive racial screen, wherein he defended the right of free speech. Is that offensive ?

[bleeding heart]

Not that this undermines your point, Michael--it doesn't, at all--but just to clarify the matter for Chomsky (much maligned on this particular situation): he was asked to write a piece on the subject of free speech, only tangentially about the racist bit under discussion, to be published with other pieces, or perhaps in a newspaper editorial; it was included as an "Introduction" (not written as one) without his consent.

[Michael Hardner]

it was included as an "Introduction" (not written as one) without his consent.

Ok, but from the film Manufacturing Consent, I remember him having a knowledge for how it would be used, in general, along with some hateful screed.

[cybercoma]

Context matters, MH. In this context, you're defending something that is offensive. There's no other way about it. Their policies are at best insensitive. In reality, they limit the options of gay and lesbians who want to be lawyers. Religious freedom or not, when a public service is offered, you're not allowed to discriminate against people whom you serve. This is what you're defending when you say it's their right not to serve gays and lesbians. You're saying the exact same thing as Jim Crow supporters who would argue that it's a business's right not to serve black people and if black people want it, they should open up their own segregated businesses. Except here, they invoke religion as an excuse for intolerance and suddenly we're supposed to accept their hatred and bigotry because they believe this is what a supernatural deity wants from them? So, yeah. It's offensive when people support fantasy over the very real consequences that gays and lesbians are facing.

[Michael Hardner]

Context matters, MH. In this context, you're defending something that is offensive.

I'm defending principles - and the trade-off is that they may be applied to offensive actions, just like Chomsky did when he wrote his piece.

... you're not allowed to discriminate against people whom you serve.

You're allowed to if you're doing so in the name of religion, and I provided links to show that.

If you don't have anything to add to that point of mine, then we're at a standstill. I don't like that people are discriminating, nor do I think it's religiously correct to do so.

This is what you're defending when you say it's their right not to serve gays and lesbians. You're saying the exact same thing as Jim Crow supporters who would argue that it's a business's right not to serve black people and if black people want it, they should open up their own segregated businesses.

Yes, I realize that.

I don't think businesses should have the right to refuse service based on race, though. There's no principle about "freedom to discriminate" based on race that we have to respect for any reason. Other than that it's about defending a principle while knowing that it will not be used in the best way. That's how principles work, and we all have to live with them to a degree.

So, yeah. It's offensive when people support fantasy over the very real consequences that gays and lesbians are facing.

Why not make religion illegal then ? That would make offensive fantasies as a rationale for social decisions obsolete, right ?