House of Lords debates pardon for Alan Turing • Hacker News Board

Re: House of Lords debates pardon for Alan Turing

#101

Post by dragonwriter » Fri, Jul 19, 2013, 7:23 PM UTC

jackmaney wrote: post #35

eeky wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem arises that the legality of marriage was designed around traditional families. There's nothing that stops homosexuals from fulfilling their emotional, romantic, and other needs. But when you involved tax deductions because children are such an expensive commitment, it gets hairy. I do support civil unions (but not gay adoption), and I am tolerant of gays (I discuss these issues with friends who are gay),…

You do realize that if the definition of marriage had never changed, then interracial marriages would still be illegal, right?

If the definition of marriage had never changed from biblical times, polygamy would still be legal.

If the definition of marriage had never changed from the 19th century, married women owning separate property wouldn't be legal.

If the definition of marriage hadn't changed from what is one in any particular time and place in the past leading up to modern marriage laws, either much broader or much narrower restrictions on consanguinity would exist.

Marriage laws change all the time, and understanding of the relationships underlying marriage on which those laws are based also change all the time. Sure, same-sex marriage is a change -- but lots of other things that we consider fairly firmly entrenched in our idea of marriages were themselves changes, some fairly recent, to pre-existing models of marriage. The whole idea that there is some single "traditional" model of marriage that has been static for an extended period of time and which is now threatened by same-sex marriage is ludicrous.

Re: House of Lords debates pardon for Alan Turing

#102

Post by DanBC » Fri, Jul 19, 2013, 7:24 PM UTC

tarice wrote: post #77

DanBC wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is possibly why Turing isn't pardoned - it'll open the doors for all the (living) homosexuals who were convicted to make compensation claims.

Listening to the video, I believe one of the lords mentioned they had done just that - pardon all the people convicted by that law who were still alive today. I'll try to find a news reference. The question, now, is whether to posthumously pardon the others. Update: Found an article. Turns out they haven't been pardoned, but their convictions are now "disregarded" and no longer appear on their criminal record[1]. [1]…

Thank you! I wasn't aware of this.

It would be good if they went further and pardoned people.

Re: House of Lords debates pardon for Alan Turing

#103

Post by jackmaney » Fri, Jul 19, 2013, 7:24 PM UTC

eeky wrote: post #68

beagle12 wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have registered an account on HN simply to respond to you. You are a despicable piece of worthless trash. Thank you.

These are the kinds of attacks that people who stand for traditional marriage have to face. A bigoted army of people who can't muster a better argument than vulgar name calling. The irony is that they claim to stand against intolerance...

Persecution complex, much?

Re: House of Lords debates pardon for Alan Turing

#104

Post by Karunamon » Fri, Jul 19, 2013, 7:25 PM UTC

eeky wrote: post #91

jlgreco wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't, though he is not even right. Bigots like him are thankfully a dying breed ( literally , if you are a fan of Max Planck) in this country.

How do you know I'm not right? Do you provide any evidence? Also what is your obsession with calling me a bigot, when I'm open to dialogue. You are the one who is glad that I'm a "dying breed", so I would say you're the bigot. Also, if you want to talk about literally being a dying breed, I would think homosexuals who do not have children fit that definition better. Also, I'm 19 years old. Much how there was a reacti…

>You are the one who is glad that I'm a "dying breed", so I would say you're the bigot.

Ah, the old "tolerance means accepting intolerance" card. Nope, totally haven't heard that tired old fallacy from the far right ever before.

>Also, if you want to talk about literally being a dying breed, I would think homosexuals who do not have children fit that definition better.

Irrelevant. If your grounds for opposing marriage equality are on purely biological grounds, you must also oppose all forms of birth control and support compulsory reproduction for married couples.

I had a more conciliatory message here a moment ago. I'm just now noticing that you're not even bothering to respond to the messages that completely disprove your points (i.e. "traditional marriage" is a nebulous term that means whatever its speaker is advocating for), so it is my full belief that you are just a troll.

Re: House of Lords debates pardon for Alan Turing

#105

Post by eeky » Fri, Jul 19, 2013, 7:25 PM UTC

jlgreco wrote: post #75

eeky wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm a bigot? Please, look up the definition of bigot and then look in the mirror. I even explicitly said I was tolerant of gays. You are the one intolerant of others' opinions.

You don't believe they deserve equal protection under the law? Oh yeah, so tolerant . Congratulation on your unprecedented tolerance.

A straight person has the same rights as a homosexual person. They can both get married. That's equal protection under the law. What you want to do is change the definition of marriage, which I think is like missing a soccer goal but arguing to move the goal posts to make you win. Make a new word for gay marriage if you want - but leave the definition of marriage alone as changing it would break a lot of legacy code.

Re: House of Lords debates pardon for Alan Turing

#106

Post by salgernon » Fri, Jul 19, 2013, 7:29 PM UTC

eeky wrote: post #91

jlgreco wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't, though he is not even right. Bigots like him are thankfully a dying breed ( literally , if you are a fan of Max Planck) in this country.

How do you know I'm not right? Do you provide any evidence? Also what is your obsession with calling me a bigot, when I'm open to dialogue. You are the one who is glad that I'm a "dying breed", so I would say you're the bigot. Also, if you want to talk about literally being a dying breed, I would think homosexuals who do not have children fit that definition better. Also, I'm 19 years old. Much how there was a reacti…

You know, there's something I've been thinking about in relation to people like you. As part of my job, from time to time I'm asked to look at resumes of people fresh out of college (for software engineering jobs), and sometimes they'll list extra-cirricular activities like band or whatever, and I've lately seen resumes where the candidate explicitly and proudly lists gay-and-lesbian related advocacy groups.

I've never seen a resume where the candidate listed anti-gay or anti-gay marriage advocacy groups.

So I wonder, if you were involved in such a group, say, the Prop 8 group in California, would you advertise that fact?

If not, why not?

Re: House of Lords debates pardon for Alan Turing

#107

Post by jackmaney » Fri, Jul 19, 2013, 7:29 PM UTC

eeky wrote: post #91

jlgreco wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't, though he is not even right. Bigots like him are thankfully a dying breed ( literally , if you are a fan of Max Planck) in this country.

How do you know I'm not right? Do you provide any evidence? Also what is your obsession with calling me a bigot, when I'm open to dialogue. You are the one who is glad that I'm a "dying breed", so I would say you're the bigot. Also, if you want to talk about literally being a dying breed, I would think homosexuals who do not have children fit that definition better. Also, I'm 19 years old. Much how there was a reacti…

By the same idiotic line of reasoning, there should hardly be any infertile people alive at all! Oh, wait...

Re: House of Lords debates pardon for Alan Turing

#108

Post by eeky » Fri, Jul 19, 2013, 7:29 PM UTC

dllthomas wrote: post #83

eeky wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm a bigot? Please, look up the definition of bigot and then look in the mirror. I even explicitly said I was tolerant of gays. You are the one intolerant of others' opinions.

> I even explicitly said I was tolerant of gays. Tolerance isn't determined by whether you say you're tolerant.

I agree completely. But this is a tactic mainly used by the other side of the debate. Homosexual groups often fly under the banner of tolerance (literally, their flag is an inclusive rainbow of colors).

Re: House of Lords debates pardon for Alan Turing

#109

Post by eeky » Fri, Jul 19, 2013, 7:30 PM UTC

dllthomas wrote: post #79

eeky wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Majority of people - so the world population.

Yeah, I understood that's what you were talking about, from other comments - I was wondering which rmc was speaking of. As to world population, I'm not sure you're correct (but also not at all sure you're incorrect). Yes, Russia and much of Africa and certainly the Middle East can be assumed to be majority opposed, but I'm not sure about Asian countries and that's a lot of people. Much of the west is obviously trendi…

Yeah it could shift eventually, big countries like Brazil have recently supported same-sex marriage at the federal level.

Re: House of Lords debates pardon for Alan Turing

#110

Post by dragonwriter » Fri, Jul 19, 2013, 7:31 PM UTC

eeky wrote: post #71

jackmaney wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Better to attack bigots who stand against marriage equality than to stand with them.

I'm a bigot? Please, look up the definition of bigot and then look in the mirror. I even explicitly said I was tolerant of gays. You are the one intolerant of others' opinions.

> I even explicitly said I was tolerant of gays.

"I am tolerant of X" implies condemnation, but with any consequence (e.g., seeking punishment) withheld.

I am tolerant of people who post bigoted statements on discussion boards, for instance.

I accept as equals people without regard to how their sexual gender preference relates to their own gender.