bush_cheney2004 Posted April 30, 2014 Report Share Posted April 30, 2014 No its how passive aggressive shutins get their kicks. Reported.....and ignored in the future, per mods direction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestCoastRunner Posted April 30, 2014 Author Report Share Posted April 30, 2014 Reported.....and ignored in the future, per mods direction. LOL, alrighty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Macadoo Posted April 30, 2014 Report Share Posted April 30, 2014 Reported.....and ignored in the future, per mods direction.Was I suppose to quote an obscure instance where a member gave a passive aggressive response, with no forum debating use, then give a backhanded insult to America on my way out the door?Reported and ignored. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestCoastRunner Posted April 30, 2014 Author Report Share Posted April 30, 2014 BC could not give any more examples. There are none to be found in Canada at the level of a law degree program. Canada does not want to go where the U.S. has gone with these ridiculous covenants. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Squid Posted April 30, 2014 Report Share Posted April 30, 2014 You should try reading the actual policy instead of basing your opinion on what critics claim it says.The actual policy says nothing about banning gays. It says that students must not engage in sexual activities outside of a marriage between a man and woman. What this means that a gay person is welcome as long as he/she is celibate. The policy also applies to unmarried heteros as well so it is not directed exclusively at gays. The only people who would have any plausible basis for a complaint would be married gay people but those people could still be open about their orientation and only would have to choose to be celibate while at the school.IMO - a requirement to be celibate is no worse than the requirement to eschew porno, alcohol or drugs. If you want to start arguing that the school is infringing on people's constitutional right to pornography then you would be consistent but silly. Only complaining about the celibacy part silly and hypocritical. A requirement for celibacy is not a violation of anyone's rights. What if the gay person is married? People seem to be avoiding this.... Can a gay married person attend this university? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestCoastRunner Posted April 30, 2014 Author Report Share Posted April 30, 2014 What if the gay person is married? People seem to be avoiding this.... Can a gay married person attend this university? They cannot because they are not man and woman. Unless they go back into the closet and say they are roommates. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted April 30, 2014 Report Share Posted April 30, 2014 (edited) Can a gay married person attend this university?If they are celibate they would not violate the rules so I don't see why not. You may think that such rules are an imposition but all of the rules are impositions. But giving up porn, booze, drugs or unmarried sex is an imposition for people too and no one is complaining about those rules. You seem to be arguing that codes of conduct are unacceptable and that people should be allowed to do whatever they want where they want and how they want. It is a ridiculous position. The bottom line is the rules restrict behavior - not what someone is. That means it is not discrimination. There is no charter right to do whatever you want anywhere. Edited April 30, 2014 by TimG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted April 30, 2014 Report Share Posted April 30, 2014 (edited) They cannot because they are not man and woman. Unless they go back into the closet and say they are roommates.That is simply false. There is nothing in the rules that says people cannot be openly gay. The only requirement is celibacy and if you think you can't be gay without actually having sex then you have a rather childish view of what it means to be gay. Edited April 30, 2014 by TimG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestCoastRunner Posted April 30, 2014 Author Report Share Posted April 30, 2014 If they are celibate they would not violate the rules so I don't see why not. You may think that such rules are an imposition but all of the rules are impositions. But giving up porn, booze, drugs or unmarried sex is an imposition for people too and no one is complaining about those rules. You seem to be arguing that codes of conduct are unacceptable and that people should be allowed to do whatever they want where they want and how they want. It is a ridiculous position. The bottom line is the rules restrict behavior - not what someone is. That means it is not discrimination. There is no charter right to do whatever you want anywhere. Why would a married couple be celibate? That is the whole point! A man and woman who are legally married can have intercourse. A married gay couple cannot. Do you not get the point here! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestCoastRunner Posted April 30, 2014 Author Report Share Posted April 30, 2014 The only requirement is celibacy and if you think you can't be gay without actually having sex then you have a rather childish view of what it means to be gay. What if you are a married gay couple? And you are christian? Do they have to practice celibacy because they are not man and woman? It's rather childish to think a married gay couple should abstain from sex. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted April 30, 2014 Report Share Posted April 30, 2014 (edited) Why would a married couple be celibate? That is the whole point! A man and woman who are legally married can have intercourse. A married gay couple cannot. Do you not get the point here!So what? Lots of places have dress codes which require that women wear skirts and men wear pants. Also, it is not clear what is meant by the phrase "sexual intimacy that violates the sacredness of marriage" but it could be interpreted to mean no anal or oral sex which means the rules would apply equally to everyone. Would you be OK if they changed the wording to say that explicitly or would you start arguing that sodomy is a constitutionally protected right or that a private institution can ban alcohol but not sodomy? Edited April 30, 2014 by TimG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestCoastRunner Posted April 30, 2014 Author Report Share Posted April 30, 2014 That is the whole point! A man and woman who are legally married can have intercourse. A married gay couple cannot. Do you not get the point here!So what? Lots of places have dress codes which require that women wear skirts and men wear pants. That is exactly the point here. A married gay couple cannot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted April 30, 2014 Report Share Posted April 30, 2014 That is exactly the point here. A married gay couple cannot.Read my updated post. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-1=e^ipi Posted April 30, 2014 Report Share Posted April 30, 2014 (edited) What if you are a married gay couple? And you are christian? Religions are bigoted. Get over it. Can an atheist become an Imam for a mosque? If not, is that discrimination against atheists, or just being reasonable? Edited April 30, 2014 by -1=e^ipi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestCoastRunner Posted April 30, 2014 Author Report Share Posted April 30, 2014 Religions are bigoted. Get over it. Can an atheist become an Imam for a mosque? If not, is that discrimination against atheists, or just being reasonable? Get over it? That's not what Canada is about. We seek to obtain equal rights for all people in Canada. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted April 30, 2014 Report Share Posted April 30, 2014 Would you be OK if they changed the wording to say that explicitly or would you start arguing that sodomy is a constitutionally protected right or that a private institution can ban alcohol but not sodomy? A side question... how did you come up with that ? Does somebody, somewhere use that provision to get around being called discriminatory ? It seems like a tactic designed for a certain jurisdiction or other. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted April 30, 2014 Report Share Posted April 30, 2014 That's not what Canada is about. We seek to obtain equal rights for all people in Canada. There's a conflict of values that's inherent in any document like the Charter of Rights, if they enshrine religion ie. a competing set of values, in the constitution. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestCoastRunner Posted April 30, 2014 Author Report Share Posted April 30, 2014 . It is just says that students can't engage in sodomy while at the the school. I was hesitant to bring up this statement but since MH did, I find it so offensive. I am having a hard time wrapping my head around this argument. I do not know how to respond to this. It is simply outrageous. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted April 30, 2014 Report Share Posted April 30, 2014 (edited) I was hesitant to bring up this statement but since MH did, I find it so offensive. I am having a hard time wrapping my head around this argument. I do not know how to respond to this. It is simply outrageous.No it is not outrageous because that is EXACTLY what we are talking about - sex acts between gays. The covenant is not about being gay or being gay and married. It is about sex acts. They want to say that some sex acts are OK between married couples and some are not. I agree it is uptight but every one of their rules is uptight so I fail to see why people get hot and bothered because the sex acts that tend to preferred by gays (but not exclusively) are on the no-no list. So stop trying to make your argument sound more gentile that it is. TWU makes no statement about the value of a loving relationship between same sex partners. It appears that TWU does not like sodomy and you are arguing for a constitutional right to sodomy. Edited April 30, 2014 by TimG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted April 30, 2014 Report Share Posted April 30, 2014 It is simply outrageous. I thing the aesthetics of using such an outdated term are a little... off-putting. As I said, the nature of religion is that it's a competing value system to that of Canada society in general, and as such there will be conflicts. Trying to bury them or wish them away will only make things worse - we have to acknowledge them, and understand that there will be a process to resolve them. You said that it's un-Canadian (paraphrasing) to not allow equal rights, but I think it's more un-Canadian to not discuss our differences openly and try to work through them... (or maybe talk them to death, I'm not sure how best to characterize it) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted April 30, 2014 Report Share Posted April 30, 2014 (edited) A side question... how did you come up with that ? Does somebody, somewhere use that provision to get around being called discriminatory ? It seems like a tactic designed for a certain jurisdiction or other.I just read it and tried to figure out what it could mean because it is really vague. If they did intend it to mean no gays then I would expect it to be worded differently. I sounds to me it is about the sex acts and not gay question. Of course, the fact that people can read it an come up with different interpretations is more evidence that the outrage if completely misplaced - the fact that a minor change in wording would completely invalidate the critic's arguments is more evidence of the same. Edited April 30, 2014 by TimG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestCoastRunner Posted April 30, 2014 Author Report Share Posted April 30, 2014 I just read it and tried to figure out what it could mean because it is really vague. If they did intend it to mean no gays then I would expect it to be worded differently. I sounds to me it is about the sec acts not gay question. It is about the gay population. I don't understand how you can't see this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted April 30, 2014 Report Share Posted April 30, 2014 It is about the gay population. I don't understand how you can't see this.Actually, it is not not. What it says is: "sexual intimacy that violates the sacredness of marriage between a man and a woman". Now what kind of sexual intimacy that violates the sacredness of marriage between a man and a woman? I would say stuff that gay people do but that does not imply it would be OK if hetros did the same thing. If that is what it means then there are no grounds for a discrimination complaint even in the case of married gays. Bottom line is I am think you are making crap up when you say this is about gays. It is about gay "sexual intimacy". The distinction is very important. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestCoastRunner Posted April 30, 2014 Author Report Share Posted April 30, 2014 It is about gay "sexual intimacy". The distinction is very important. Of course it's about gay sexual intimacy. That is my whole f'in point! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted April 30, 2014 Report Share Posted April 30, 2014 (edited) Of course it's about gay sexual intimacy. That is my whole f'in point!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. Edited April 30, 2014 by TimG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.