or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › One Millenium Of Homophobic Hypocrisy ~ Alan Turing's Centenary
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

One Millenium Of Homophobic Hypocrisy ~ Alan Turing's Centenary

post #1 of 2
Thread Starter 
Just came across this about Alan Turing, which I did not know about, when reading up cryptography stuff.

Interestingly, this year would be Alan Turing's 100th birthday. David Cameron, of course, won't have anything more to say about this ~
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/08/wo...1952-case.html

The gem is the comments on the 2009 article about him ~ obviously I'm late to the party about the UK apology ~ shows you, you can take a man out of 1000 years ago, but you can't take the 1000 years out of a man.

"This man was tried and found guilty of having sex with a minor. Why on earth are we offering up an apology?

- John F, Derby, 12/9/2009 11:33"


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-just-gay.html

...

OK, so we look at it, and say, oh, a minor, that's not cool, gay or straight. Bad Alan Turing.

Then, we read that the "minor" was 19. OK, so that's under 21, maybe the laws were all about under-21s.

Wrong.

"The age of consent for heterosexual acts in England was set at 12 in 1275 during the reign of Edward I. It was lowered to 10 in the latter part of the 16th century. The wording was along the lines of "It shall be deemed illegal to ravage a maiden who is not of age" - at the time "of age" being ~12"

So, OK, they were obviously messed up then, surely by the 20th Century, we've come further.

Wrong.

"Male-male homosexual activity had been illegal since the Buggery Act 1533 and this was reinforced in the Offences against the Person Act 1861 and the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1885 extended buggery laws to include any kind of sexual activity between males. It is common folklore that an amendment that would have criminalised lesbian acts was rejected by Queen Victoria because she refused to believe that some women did such things; but it is likelier that those presenting the amendment excluded it (as did the House of Lords 40 years later) on the assumption that it would give women ideas.

Male homosexual acts were decriminalised under the Sexual Offences Act 1967, Section 1, although the age of consent for such acts was set at 21, whereas the age of consent for heterosexual acts was 16. However, the legislation applied only in England and Wales."


So you're saying, OK, 60's well, at least they decriminalised it, I'm sure by the 90's everything is sorted out.

Wrong. Only in the year 2000 was age of consent "lowered" to 16 to be similar to heterosexual acts.

So now we're saying, OK, well, I suppose it sucked for Alan Turing (pun seriously unintended) to have the homo-hetero-law dichotomy back in 1952, now it's all cool, right?

Wrong.

"Whilst acknowledging the importance of Turing's work, it must be said that we are all equal under the law - the distinguished and the downtrodden alike. What he did was illegal under the law of the day. It does seem extremely harsh now, but the moral values held then were strict and in accordance with God's law. Many convictions were made for gross indecency in public. These public acts were most innappropriate, as they would be today, as also would heterosexual acts done in public today. These acts are a matter for the individual conscience and their place is behind closed doors, not for the world to see. I would not seek to judge Mr. Turing, but his behaviour was against the law of the day. That is why the prime Minister's apology seems rather muddle headed and really just a bit meaningless.

- roger, london, 12/9/2009 07:10

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1212910/How-Britain-drove-greatest-genius-Alan-Turing-suicide--just-gay.html#ixzz1nqqRjUUk"


In 2009 through to today, thousands of years after men have been boning young girls whenever they liked, legally, it's still the "Oh, gayness is bad, somebody please think about the children and God's law". It pisses me off because as a Theist these kind of comments seriously malign the concept of the Divine.

Also, there are several fallacies in the types of arguments such as the above trying to validate some of history as "well, it was right for then" ~ of which you will commonly see today and probably for the next few decades. An example, which I'm sure you can find more on this kind of thing, is the cherry picking. If "Oh, in 1952 that was the law so it had to be enforced" is considered a valid argument, then so would "Having hetero sex with a 13 year old in 1552 is alright because it was legal". Also, "public decency" was not the issue. I don't think Alan Turing was convicted for having sex in public, simply for having sex with a man [of any age].

I notice that cultural relativism is often an argument used against "liberals", but that's what the "conservatives" regularly use at well. Some things in Biblical times was right, others not, some things in the 1950's was good, but not 1550's, though 1350's was spectacular... What's wrong with this picture? Who defines what is right and wrong? Who says what God says is right or wrong? I've been reading the Bible, and I certainly don't see anything about Jesus saying that pork, alchohol, drugs, smoking, homosexuality, etc. is a hellish offence.

But we all know this. What I call for is for people to be open and say, I believe this is right, or this is wrong. Own it first. You can then say, because I believe in God, or because I don't. But own that belief by your Self first. It's 2012. We know all the arguments, the history, etc., and short of secret documents from all the world's major religions being discovered, or aliens ariving showing surveillance footage of the past 2 billion years on Earth, we all know what says what. Now, own it personally. Don't hide behind laws, religion, or other documents.

Personally, I think 18 should be the standard age of consent around the world for heterosexual and homosexual acts. 16 does seem a little low to me.
post #2 of 2
Get the government out of sexual matters except for when it is clearly agreed upon abuse and you've got your problem solved be it homosexual or heterosexual.

18 is far too old to be the universal age of consent be it homosexual or heterosexual.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › One Millenium Of Homophobic Hypocrisy ~ Alan Turing's Centenary