Discrimination

[inked]

Those governments do encourage a view to real life: chastity, monogamy, and fidelity, AIDS testing prior to marriage so you'll know what you are getting into into, et cetera. I believe you refer to that as imposing a moral viewpoint when in fact it is sound public health policy, like properly utilized DDT for mosquito control.

[Lotesse]

Inked sounds disturbingly Orwellian, as in that George Orwell novel 1984.

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by inked

ALL your children belong to us...........

http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2007/aug/07081701.html


ahhh, Canada..........................

That's "All your children are belong to us.

This is a tough one. I feel really sympathetic towards the Mennonites here, but in the case of their school I think they're out of luck. If you want to run a school in Quebec it's only fair that you teach the provincial curriculum. One group of kids getting a different education as another group of kids should be minimised as much as humanly possible. If you don't want to teach about homosexuality and sex education (and I'm not sure if their science curriculum adds up if they don't explain what the Theory of Evolution is), then you don't get to run a school.

You could still teach these things as long as the kids go to a school that meets the provincial criteria, and the Mennonite's curriculum could be taught in an after-school program or the like.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by inked

Those governments do encourage a view to real life: chastity, monogamy, and fidelity, AIDS testing prior to marriage so you'll know what you are getting into into, et cetera. I believe you refer to that as imposing a moral viewpoint when in fact it is sound public health policy, like properly utilized DDT for mosquito control.

I disagree. Chastity, monogamy and fidelity are all fine and well to promote, but you can't ignore the fact that a vast proportion of the population can not and will not ever live by these morals. Real life is about all kinds of lifestyles, and always will be. Thus, you teach people how to best deal with the less-desireable things in life as well.

It would be like stopping at AIDs testing or just using DDT. The perfect solution is to never get sick in the first place, but a realistic plan also deals with treatment for those who get AIDs or malaria.

[inked]

Originally Posted by Lotesse

Inked sounds disturbingly Orwellian, as in that George Orwell novel 1984.

Nowhere near as Orwellian as Canada, Lotesse.

[inked]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

That's "All your children are belong to us.

This is a tough one. I feel really sympathetic towards the Mennonites here, but in the case of their school I think they're out of luck. If you want to run a school in Quebec it's only fair that you teach the provincial curriculum. One group of kids getting a different education as another group of kids should be minimised as much as humanly possible. If you don't want to teach about homosexuality and sex education (and I'm not sure if their science curriculum adds up if they don't explain what the Theory of Evolution is), then you don't get to run a school.

You could still teach these things as long as the kids go to a school that meets the provincial criteria, and the Mennonite's curriculum could be taught in an after-school program or the like.

Quebec could have afterschool classes for people who want the forcefed curriculum, too. It could allow parents to opt in or opt out their kids.

BUT, NNNNNNNNOOOOOOOOooooo! All your kids are us. Maybe they'll require courses in say, self-acupuncture, too to help with the national health service delays for broken hips and things like that next?

[GrayMouser]

Originally Posted by inked

Those governments do encourage a view to real life: chastity, monogamy, and fidelity, AIDS testing prior to marriage so you'll know what you are getting into into, et cetera. I believe you refer to that as imposing a moral viewpoint when in fact it is sound public health policy, like properly utilized DDT for mosquito control.

No, condoms are like DDT. Abstinence education is like asking mosquitoes not to bite you.

[brownjenkins]

Abstinence-only programs don't lower HIV risk

“In contrast to abstinence-only programs, programs that promote the use of condoms greatly reduce the risk of acquiring HIV, especially when such programs are culturally tailored behavioral interventions targeting people at highest risk of HIV infection,” Dr. Stephen E. Hawes, from the University of Washington in Seattle, and colleagues note in a relate editorial.

[BeardofPants]

Well...der?

[inked]

Originally Posted by GrayMouser

No, condoms are like DDT. Abstinence education is like asking mosquitoes not to bite you.

Clearly, GM, if the mosquitos are not abstaining, you must not be asking nicely enough and need to continue a dialogue with them to achieve the goal of their not biting you. Liberals swear that this programmattic attempt to deal with the "problem" of mosquito will work every time. Unless you get one of those liberals who think it is your duty to allow the mosquitos to utilize you as a chow line because that is natural.

In either case the liberals expect you to disavow your innate humanity and reason and to descend to bestial levels of behaviour because "you cannot help it, it is in your genes (jeans?)" or NOT in your jeans, I should say.

[inked]

Originally Posted by BeardofPants

Well...der?

Yeah, BoP, quoting the editorial like it was statistics or something is a bit of a "doh" or "duh", isn't it?

This thread is about discrimination, after all.

[brownjenkins]

You can read her paper if you want the statistics.

discrimination, favoritism
unfair treatment of a person or group on the basis of prejudice

[inked]

discrimination
1)The act of discriminating.
2)The ability or power to see or make fine distinctions; discernment.
3)Treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit; partiality or prejudice: racial discrimination; discrimination against foreigners.

Archaically, the specific thing differentiating as in "Oh, that was the discriminate."

The delay of sexual activity by a mere two years has a powerful effect of discriminating between those who achieve and those who are mired in less achievement. So, if the endpoint is merely "Oh, virtually everyone gets laid eventually" I confess that abstinence-only does not entirely and forever prevent sexual activity. But I contend that the benefits of abstinence-only education are not limited to those who never have sex.

It's a discriminate in the effects of timing and longterm results other than mere eventual copulation.

Discriminate.

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by inked

Discriminate.

Are you asking me to use my brain?!

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by inked

The delay of sexual activity by a mere two years has a powerful effect of discriminating between those who achieve and those who are mired in less achievement.

I would call that statement: Treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit.

[inked]

True, is what you should call it.

http://www.teenpregnancy.org/resourc...e/absfacts.asp

[Mari]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

Are you asking me to use my brain?!

Is that going to be such a problem then?

[inked]

Even the French do it!

French Government Report Says No to Homosexual “Marriage”
Decisive factor was concern for children - "two fathers, or two mothers" – "biologically neither real nor plausible"

By John-Henry Westen

PARIS, February 16, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) – A government commission set up at the request of the President of the French National Assembly has concluded that homosexual ‘marriage’ and adoption by homosexual couples, and medically assisted procreation for homosexual couples should not be permitted by law. The decisive factor to the report's conclusions, after an investigation of more than a year, was the commission’s decision to act “to affirm and protect children’s rights and the primacy of those rights over adults’ aspirations.”

The Information Mission, as the commission was called, was to propose any change to the law and to administrative practices that were necessary to better protect the rights of the child and to reflect changes in the French family. The commission’s report, the Parliamentary Report on the Family and the Rights of Children, released January 27, 2006 did acknowledge that the French family has altered significantly, becoming “more diverse and less institutionalized”, but recommended nonetheless that in the best interests of children homosexual ‘marriage’ should remain prohibited.

The Information Mission made every effort to hear all views on the subject. It organized 14 round tables and heard 130 people from the diversity of French society. It travelled to Spain, the United Kingdom, Belgium, the Netherlands and Canada to assess the reforms that have been undertaken in other countries.

The report sets out 100 proposals that require amendments to existing statutory or regulatory provisions.

The Mission considered demands for marriage to be made available to same-sex couples, and was of the view that it “is not possible to think about marriage separately from filiation: the two questions are closely connected, in that marriage is organized around the child.” Said the report: “ Marriage is not merely the contractual recognition of the love between a couple; it is a framework that imposes rights and duties, and that is designed to provide for the care and harmonious development of the child. Foreign examples demonstrate this: countries that have made marriage available to same-sex couples have all, simultaneously or subsequently, authorized adoption by those couples and developed systems for assisted procreation or surrogate gestation, to enable those couples to have children.”

The report stated: “It would in fact be incoherent, if couples were regarded as equal, to remove the prohibition on marriage and preserve it for filiation.”

Summing up its decision process on the matter, the Information Mission says, “Making marriage available to same-sex couples therefore presupposes that they will also be given the right to adopt and receive medical assistance for procreation, and even the right to use surrogate mothers, because such couples are not fertile. The Mission is divided on this subject. It considered the consequences for the child’s development and the construction of his or her identity of creating a fictitious filiation by law – two fathers, or two mothers – which is biologically neither real nor plausible. Diametrically opposed representations were made by the people heard on this point, and they failed to persuade a majority of the Mission to support recognizing a right to a child or a right to marriage, for same-sex couples. A majority of the Mission does not wish to question the fundamental principles of the law of filiation, which are based on the tripartite unit of ‘a father, a mother, a child’, citing the principle of caution. For that reason, that majority also, logically, chose to deny access to marriage to same-sex couples.”

See the full French Parliamentary Report (in French):
http://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/12...mission_famill...
***************************************

http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/feb/06021601
***************************************

Discriminate: distinguish between options......

[Lief Erikson]

Interesting article, inked. It very much surprises me that a commission would come to that conclusion in France. France's values are overall so off that it is very wierd to me to see that kind of decision made there.

[inked]

Yes. Lief, I thought so on both counts as well.

Speaking of discrimination, what do you make of this article about the perils of diversity in practice in America?

http://www.boston.com/news/education..._of_diversity/

What do you do when research discovers an inconvenient truth and you are a liberal from Harvard who has to publish?