Every so often, religious conservatives tend to exhibit their homophobic tendencies in a few not-so-subtle ways: Writing to newspapers to vilify the gay pride movement, deriding them as "filthy beasts" or other derogatory words and basically treating them with contempt.
Of course, we from the infidelic community (Gay or otherwise) have no problems with socializing with the gay community, provided, of course, they do not sexually harass us heterosexuals (and the tit-lovers such as the likes of me), but generally, we applaud their courage to stand out and take a stand against the conservative majority who tend not to use their brains to discern matters, instead relying on ancient hocus pocus nonsense to justify their homophobic hatred.
In line with what I have discussed today, I wish to introduce a historical figure, a (gasp!) gay man who, with his absolute genius in the field of crytography and mathematics, literally won the battle of the minds against
Alan Turing
Alan Turing (1911-1952)
Born in 1911 to Julius Mathison Turing and his wife, Sara, Alan Turing and his family returned to
Alan Turing's natural inclination to Mathematicians was awe-inspiring, to say the least: At 15, he managed to single-handledly solve advanced calculus problems without any basic background in elementary calculus (Believe me.....calculus is inspired by the Devil. Tsk Tsk).
His mathematical talents were, however, unappreciated by the rigid British education system, which, like the Qing dynasty's education system in Imperial China, emphasized more on the Classics than mathematics.
Contributions
Thanks to the brilliant genius of Turing, the Allies were able to decipher encoded messages from
After the war, Turing hurled himself towards computer research, and would have been a leading researcher in the then new field of computing science had it not been the cruel intervention of the moral police.
Persecution and Subsequent Suicide
Unfortunately for Turing, he was born in a time when homosexuality was outlawed in England: When a known male acquaintance broke into his home in 1952, he reported the case to the police, who had adjudged that his homosexuality was a much graver crime than the burglary itself. Turing admitted to having a licentious relationship with the male acquaintance, and both were tried under Section 11 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1885.
Due to the conviction, Turing was left with two equally unappealing choices: Go to jail for his "crime", or undergo hormonal treatment to "cure" his gay tendencies. He chose the latter, and as a result of the conviction he had to undergo the humiliation of enforced estrogen injections and the loss of his consultancy post in GCHQ (Government Communications Headquarters).
As a result of the traumatic blows to his high-flying career, the strain to his personal and physical life took a toll on his mental health (This time, it is for real: In those days, homosexuality was considered a mental disease! Boy have we moved on since the good ole days!). He had developed breasts, no thanks to the terrible hormonal therapy he was coerced into so that he didn't have to spend time in jail for what we know now as an innocuous charge.
And so it was, on
Yesterday's Ignorance Must Not Be Repeated
It is a tad foolish for me, or anyone else for the matter, to blame the police for their actions: They were merely acting in accordance to the rule of law, and besides, psychiatry and medical science were not as knowledgeable as we know today.
That excuse, however, cannot exonerate us from the abject ignorance of today: Homosexuality, as we know today, is neither a mental disorder nor a crime; it is a rather minor alteration of preference and, to a certain extent, determined by our genes. The fact that religious morons still insist on banning homosexuality in some countries (which I am ashamed to say, includes my country, Singapore) and gay marriages in most countries speaks volumes of the incredible injustice and stigma against the homosexual community.
It does not take a gay to sympathize with the gay community: They are being slighted and discarded by self-righteous, unctuous religious bigots who have nothing better to do other than berate at others who do not serve their homophobic, racist and misogynistic beliefs.
Everyone deserves to be respected, straight, gay or otherwise. Otherwise, we may end up with the tragedy of losing bright, young talents based on nothing else but stupid religions and their irrelevant dogmas.
"Prejudice is the child of ignorance." ~William Hazlitt
20 comments:
“Homosexuality, as we know today, is neither a mental disorder nor a crime; it is a rather minor alteration of preference and, to a certain extent, determined by our genes.”
So, you are saying science has gone from claiming homosexuality is a “mental disorder” to a “genes” issue, yet you claim in the same breath it is a “preference”, am I right? How exactly do you define “alteration of preference”? Do you mean that the body chooses homosexuality over heterosexuality (which would be a flaw of nature), or do you mean it is the choice of the individual of sexual preference?
If it is a mental disorder or genes, is it really then a preference of the individual or simply a forced reaction without the will of man? Isn’t this just another way of trying to get around the fact that we choose on a daily basis as to what we will do and not do, and all homosexuals simply choose to be homosexuals without a mental disorder or genes overriding their consciousness demanding they become as such?
According to your ideals, the difference is simple to see:
Whereas Scripture sees homosexuals as people choosing such lusts themselves, science sees homosexuals as people forced by nature (evolution) to choose such lusts whether the individual actually acknowledges such or not.
Hmmmm….
“Evolution made me this way.” Nope, it is a choice just like every other act mankind chooses to do.
Tim
Note: My comment is directed at the "choice" of homosexuality.
Samuel Skinner
Hey, I know I have no choice in the fact I'm attracted to the opposite sex- I hold homosexuals up to the same standard.
It is to bad happening to Turing- of course it is worse since none of his friends helped him out. Always nice to have fair weather friends...
Writer, Splinters of Silver.com "Whereas Scripture sees homosexuals as people choosing such lusts themselves, science sees homosexuals as people forced by nature (evolution) to choose such lusts whether the individual actually acknowledges such or not...“Evolution made me this way.” Nope, it is a choice just like every other act mankind chooses to do."
Ah. Nature Vs. Nurture. Most things are a mix of both, I find. From my parents, I got this male-pattern baldness (nature), but it was my father who taught me how to cover it up with this snazzy combover (nurture). No one can tell that I'm balding! No one! Moo ha-ha!
...
Scripture "sees" a lot of things. Things like grasshopper having four legs or a man surviving a long weekend inside a fish. Also, a 6,000 year old universe. All of those things are demonstratibly wrong. This, I find to be odd, as God apparently helped out with writing the bible. Perhaps they should have brought in an editor, instead (my god, man! Have you read it? It just goes on and on and on!).
By that I mean, although I am not gay, I am gay for you. Just you, you saucy man, you.
Lolz, Modusoperandi.......you really have the wits and humor about you.....is that what they call the laconic wit?
Tim, regardless of whether homosexuality being a matter of preference or genetic deviation, one thing is sure: Homosexuality and anal sex between two consensual adults are perfectly legal acts.
As for your scriptures, I shall reiterate what I have always said: If you want to use your holy babble to justify your homophobia, consider enacting laws that allow women, disobedient children and infidels to be stoned to death.
Ouch. Not exactly very nice, eh?
Beast
Being gay, by choice or genes, does not matter, period, unless you are a religious person.In my opinion.
Why does it matter who you choose to be with?
It is too bad that Turing had to live in the age...
Splinters:
It's pretty clear from your writings that you think of "homosexuality" as nothing more than sexual activity with a member of the same sex. You seem to completely ignore the possibility that sexual orientation is more than that, but also includes issues of who one is attracted to both sexually and romantically.
And therein lies your problem. You're willing to completely define terms like "homosexuality" to fit a predefined understanding of what it should be in order to maintain your worldview.
What I find more interesting is that you chose to latch onto a single sentence from a much larger post. While tacking the whole "choice vs. genes" argument (which is a red herring in terms of both morality and civil rights), you completely ignore the fact that Beast is pointing out how gay people are mistreated, abused, and discriminated against.
But I suspect that's because if you were to actually address these issues, the true ugliness of your views would be exposed. And I'm willing to bet that's something you wish to avoid at all costs. Unfortunately for you, many of us already see through the smokescreen.
Encore! Encore!
Excellent rebuttal by seithman! I couldn't have said it better.
Beast
Very interesting comment Seithman. I see what you mean. It's the "pick and choose" thing again...:)
Regarding the post, the sad truth is that there are those who would like to return to the days when homosexuality was considered a mental disorder. "Professional organizations" like NARTH actively push the fiction that the APA removed homosexuality from the list of mental disorders in response to political pressure rather than due to careful consideration based on research. Such organizations also push the idea of "reparative therapy" to turn gay people straight (though what they actually promise changes as the lure their patients further into the "therapy" process). Things are still quite ugly. And if some groups had their way, it'd get even uglier once again.
Seithman:
From a personal standpoint, I am not really against people's creeds or sexual orientations: I have made friends with gays, and I have also been harassed by gays (whom I have rebuked), but generally, I think that what one does in one's own private room is one's own business as long as he or she doesn't harm others.
Religious morons who want to impose their values on others should understand that just as the laws of the state allows them to practice their archaic nonsense, the same rules also applies on gays and just about everyone else.
Beast
I think it's beyond anybody to "understand" gayness if they themselves and not gay. Acceptance is the key here and what we as a society deem to be "acceptable". Like talking back to your parents; we've deemed it unacceptable to stone ones children to death for uttering the epitaph "Fuck you! You just don't understand me!" in typical teenage fashion.
The more religion loses its grasp on the moral authority of society the better.
“It's pretty clear from your writings that you think of "homosexuality" as nothing more than sexual activity with a member of the same sex. You seem to completely ignore the possibility that sexual orientation is more than that, but also includes issues of who one is attracted to both sexually and romantically.”
Actually, seithman, Scripture declares:
Romans 1:27
And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
So, Scripture declares that homosexuality indeed may concern the burning lusts (desires) of mankind toward one of their own sex, such is why I wrote: “Note: My comment is directed at the "choice" of homosexuality.”
But just as a man (or woman) may lust after a woman (or man) doesn’t mean they will act upon such lusts, it is a choice to act. Such is the case with the choice of each homosexual to act upon such thoughts to bring about lust, and then the act itself (equally is it so in heterosexuality, for heterosexuals do not go around having sex with every person they see or lust after).
The real issue is this: Either homosexuality is a sin and wrong and should not be allowed to be treated as acceptable behavior, or neither homosexuality nor heterosexuality is right or wrong and both are just fine and dandy.
Scripture declares homosexuality is a sin; therefore, as a Christian, I cannot accept THE ACT of homosexuality as being considered equally right with heterosexuality. As such, I can treat a homosexual as a person and not harm them for being a homosexual, but on the other hand I cannot give them rights meant for heterosexuals since homosexuality is wrong.
I realize that you disagree, but for me to understand your worldview, you must understand the worldview of Christianity. Accept it, reject it, it is still here to stay.
So, no smoke screen, just a limited observation on my part.
Tim
So, Scripture declares that homosexuality indeed may concern the burning lusts (desires) of mankind toward one of their own sex, such is why I wrote: “Note: My comment is directed at the "choice" of homosexuality.”
Ah, but you see, Tim, you're still trying to limit sexual orientation to the realm of "lust." You haven't considered the emotional ramifications of homosexuality. Being attracted to and loving men is about more than mere lust, just as your being attracted to and loving women is (hopefully) about more than just lust. However, because of a few scant verses in your Bible, you insist on ignoring that fact. You need homosexuality to be about nothing more than lust.
Personally, I think Misty Irons (who I totally respect despite certain basic disagreements we have) has some interesting thoughts on that.
Larro: As a gay man, I'd have to say that I think it depends on how you define "understand" in that context. I think there's a certain level of intellectual understanding that is possible. However, I will agree that a sort of "core being" understanding that goes beyond intellectualism is unlikely if not outright impossible.
Tim:
The Christian worldview is being encroached upon everyday.......remember the good ole days when white christians owned slaves? Or how evolution was banned in public schools?
Face it Tim. You stupidity, along with your Holy Babble, are just going to be consigned to the annals of history books.......the sooner the better.
Beast
"I realize that you disagree, but for me to understand your worldview, you must understand the worldview of Christianity. Accept it, reject it, it is still here to stay."
Tim is indirectly telling us: Try to understand my bigotry, no matter what you think, it is here to stay.
My rebuttal is simple: If he wants me to respect his bigotry, then the next time someone bashes his fellow brethren, he'd better respect that too.
Beast
"Ah, but you see, Tim, you're still trying to limit sexual orientation to the realm of "lust." You haven't considered the emotional ramifications of homosexuality."
Seithman,
Again you are taking my "limited" points of discuission (done on purpose to not lengthen my responses) and assume I am limited homosexuality to first only "choice" and now "lust". Indeed people love sin, so indeed a homosexual may love another homosexual, the fact is it is still sin, still lust, and still a choice.
Tim
From what I can see, discrimination, abuse and intolerance towards a person based on their sexual orientation is a far greater sin than homosexuality itself, if it is a sin at all.
"I realize that you disagree, but for me to understand your worldview, you must understand the worldview of Christianity. Accept it, reject it, it is still here to stay."
well, for centuries people thought that the world was flat, then they thought maybe the sun revolved around the earth, with such conviction that the imprison their fellow men for suggesting otherwise.
It's a shame there's no way for us to purge the world of such atrocities.
Back to the real reason I posted this comment today. This is indeed a very enlightening post, it is the finer ones by Beast in a while.
Post a Comment