The bigger issue here is that people look to governments and religions for pardons, permission and other validation. People that see some kind of meaning in empty gestures like a posthumous pardon (after shaming and chemically castrating the man) are grossly mislead.
Buying into the hype of government is what gives governments the power to commit senseless crimes like what was done to Alan Turing and many, many crimes that are much worse. The correct answer to "should the UK government pardon Alan Turing?" is "fuck off".
I view the gay marriage issue in the same light. I have gay friends that care deeply about marriage equality, but as much as I love them and they are my friends, I simply cannot sympathize. My answer to them is: "Live your life, do want you want to do, don't ask the government or anyone else for permission".
If worried about my status as defined by the U.S. government and the fairness I can expect from U.S. government, I would just kill myself now. Thankfully I realize that government is just another scam for me to avoid to the best of my ability.
Nobody is asking for permission. We are asking for equal protection under the law.
There are dozens of boring issues that are bundled with this issue. For me, repeal of DOMA means that if I got hit by a bus tomorrow, my husband would be able to continue to live in our home and not have to sell it to pay taxes on his "windfall".
This is psychotic. In the literal sense of having lost contact with reality.
As much as you dislike the government, you can't just ignore how incredibly powerful it is in people's daily lives. The incidents of legally recognized marriage are very real and very significant. I've met many families separated (or threatened with separation) by immigration law that didn't recognize same-sex couples. No amount of saying "fuck off" to the government is going to change whether you're family members will be allowed to live in the same country as you.
In the case of Alan Turing, no amount of him saying "fuck off" to the government could prevent them from criminalizing his relationship and chemically castrating him. The UK government issuing a pardon is a overdue recognition that they instituted a campaign on suffering on many people, one of whom hand a significant part in saving the country from the Nazis.
>The incidents of legally recognized marriage are very real and very significant. I've met many families separated (or threatened with separation) by immigration law that didn't recognize same-sex couples.
A real-world example of this with a name HN readers will recognize is Glenn Greenwald.
Greenwald has lived in Brazil for the past several years because his partner is Brazilian and Brazil recognizes same-sex relationships for immigration purposes while the United States does not.
I'm not ignoring how powerful the government is in people's lives. I'm saying that it holds that power because the masses of people believe that that's the way things should be. Discussions about useless debates happening in the House of Lords lends credibility to a completely ridiculous way of thinking. I don't think my position is the one that has lost contact with reality... I'd say the House of Lords is where reality is truly forgotten.
The last sentence I wrote was: "Thankfully I realize that government is just another scam for me to avoid to the best of my ability." I don't think people should stop paying taxes or do other things that put themselves in jeopardy, but I think that when people pay taxes or fight for marriage equality, they need to stay aware of what is really going on: they are victims of the government monopoly on violence.
You can live your life the way you want right up to the point where you want to visit your husband in the hospital or inherit the estate of your dead wife. Then these legal things start to matter.
I would argue the opposite: that empty gestures such as these call public attention to the fact that laws and governments are fallible and sometimes unjust.
Imagine the social significance in the U.S. if Congress officially apologized for MLK being mailed a letter suggesting he commit suicide, or for overthrowing the leadership of Iran in the 50s, any of the other misdeeds that have gone down the memory hole.
> My answer to them is: "Live your life, do want you want to do, don't ask the government or anyone else for permission".
I'm straight, but this is really easy to say when you've never had the experience of not being able to see a significant other in the hospital because you aren't classified as either family or a spouse.
Legality affects many other parts of life as well.
> The bigger issue here is that people look to governments and religions for pardons, permission and other validation.
This statement is vague about how many people are looking to governments and religions and how many people you think should be looking to governments and religions. It wouldn't be reasonable to expect nobody to be looking to them, as there are millions of people and thus there are going to be varied interests. There are also some people who I expect to be looking to them, and those are people who are currently, or were formerly, actively involved with a religion or a government.
> If worried about my status as defined by the U.S. government and the fairness I can expect from U.S. government, I would just kill myself now.
Pure hyperbole.
You bring up an interesting topic, but I think the issue needs to be framed differently.
Those who want equal rights under the law should just “kill themselves now”? Wow. To borrow your own phrase, the proper response to that is “fuck off.”
The position of government on various issues is far from meaningless. It is as close as we can get to a tangible representation of the common (majority) opinion and common will of the mass of people that makes up a country (see below for a caveat). While you shouldn't base your own opinions on what everybody else thinks, it's ridiculous to think that everybody else's opinions will never affect your life.
So, I think it's unsettling that the question whether Britain still thinks what they did to Turing is OK is even an open question. UPDATE: `notahacker` pointed out that this last sentence is an oversimplification. I think this only strengthens the point that it is important that the government clearly state its position through actions such as pardons.
-----
Caveat: Really, government's representation of the common opinion of the masses of people is not direct, and always a bit out of date. However, the government very directly represents what the masses people are going to do with the common resources they share. For example, whether they will use these common resources to persecute gay people.
It's interesting to observe how public attitudes do seem to have changed in response to relatively minor and symbolic changes.
One only has to look at how the UK political landscape has shifted from the massive campaigns around the abolition of an offensive but essentially toothless piece of legislation preventing "the promotion of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship" to being broadly accepting of the logic of gay marriage in less than a decade (interestingly that shift of opinion includes the British Prime Minister). Perhaps it's the benefit of hindsight making the dire warnings of the Right look ridiculous, perhaps the change would have happened regardless of decisions the legislature took in 2003, but either way it's difficult to dismiss the effect of legislative changes that don't make the sky fall in on people's attitudes.
I don't think many people in the UK think "what they did to Turing is OK"; the wider issue is whether a specific pardon is the appropriate response, not least because a pardon implies the recipient is exceptional in deserving it.
Cultural note: That bit of law is called "section 28" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_28) - There were worries that it would prevent a teacher from counciling gay pupils, among other things.
While 'toothless' it did have effects:
> As it did not create a criminal offence, no prosecution was ever brought under this provision, but its existence caused many groups to close or limit their activities or self-censor. For example, a number of lesbian, gay and bisexual student support groups in schools and colleges across Britain were closed owing to fears by council legal staff that they could breach the Act.
...even though it was mostly not applicable to teachers.
Agreed. This particular "pardon", if he gets it, is coming 61 years too late. The fact that he saved his country's ass ought to have counted for more than this. The whole case is a definition of ingratitude.
Gay marriage is different from posthumously pardoning somebody.
Marriage is not just some meaningless thing, it's a contract, and it comes with all kinds of benefits - lower taxes, visitation rights, medical decisions, common property, etc.
I believe they plan to, and that is what is being debated, they are just using Alan Turing as the most famous example of an deceased person that should be pardoned.
Why not do it all in a single bill? They could still make him a figure head, even name the bill after him and include a specific point about pardoning him, but include everyone else too.
If this ends up getting through all the stages and they then want to do the same for everyone else, at the very least it's a waste of time going through the stages again (if there's no more debate), or if there is still debate then even more time wasted.
The only reason not to include it in this bill, if that is their long-term plan, is if they think it is more likely to pass with just one name, which seems odd to me.
The 16,000 alive can apply for pardon, but it's most likely not automatic, I guess their case must be reviewed.
The government didn't want to allow pardon to the dead because they said that in some cases they couldn't know that these homosexual acts were consensual and not under age. The Lord presenting the bill is advocating for rehabilitation of the dead if there is enough evidence available, and he hopes the Turing bill (which will pardon only Alan Turing) is a first step towards allowing pardon for the 59,000 convicted who are now dead.
Yes - sometimes it takes someone famous to make the issue public, and everyone else will benefit. It was an absolute travesty and shame for what they did to him, and we are all the worse for it.
From the reading "This would be a symbolic first step towards the disregard for the 49,000 others convicted and now dead and perhaps a step forward towards successfully amending the protection of freedoms act to that affect when the opportunity arises.". Looks like this is the goal.
If I remember correctly, the last time this came up, they gave a good reason for not pardoning him. They knew that he was innocent, and that the government of the time had wronged him. Still, they refused to give a pardon. Not because they agreed with the actions against Turing, but because they felt that pardoning him would be an attempt to cover up their mistreatment of him.
They refused to pardon him, because it was their shame to know how wrongly they had acted, and they would not hide that shame.
> not that he hadn't broken it so as to have a pardon
Reasoning I find confusing. A pardon is by definition something given to people convicted of breaking the law. It can be and is sometimes used as a relief for people who have been -wrongly- convicted if there is no other mechanism (or just because it's easier), but that's not implied or required.
The argument would be that he wasn't wrongly convicted.
By modern standards it's obviously a stupid, unjust and immoral law that he was convicted under; but if he was correctly found guilty under the laws of the time, then it was a sound conviction.
Pardons are a general tool to forgive (in several senses) a crime. If you look at the history of pardons in the US for example, you'll find examples ranging from people who were wrongly convicted, to people who got one as a reward for cooperating in investigations, to people who simply had powerful friends.
Which is why I find that reasoning confusing - when you pardon someone, you just do it... and if you care to give a reason you can.
Perhaps it's different in the UK? Is this some limitation on the powers of the House of Lords?
'It is the standard policy of the Government to only grant pardons to those who are considered "morally" innocent of the offence, as opposed to those who may have been wrongly convicted by a misapplication of the law.'
It also mentions that in 1996 there was a pardon given as a "reward for information".
It seems like a good reason to me. They couldn't pardon him when it mattered, and now they want to puff themselves up with how magnanimous and tolerant they are, just when it doesn't matter? Screw that!
The pardon doesn't serve anybody's interests but their own, it simply uses what was done to Turing to enhance their own political reputation.
Reminds me of the mormons baptising dead jews - it is actually offensive.
It no longer matters to Turing, but it still sends a message to the country that how he and others were treated was wrong, which is a good thing.
Whether a pardon is needed after an official apology was already issued is debatable, as they both send the same message, personally I'd like to see it passed but won't really care much if it doesn't.
It's very different to "converting" dead people to your religion, as this act would have been offensive to them if done when they were alive. However Turing would not have been offended if pardoned while alive.
Those two things are in no way related. There is nothing offensive about admitting to previous mistakes and making a gesture to an important figure that you wronged. There is something offensive about radical the religious attempting gain attention by performing baptisms on dead bodies that have nothing to do with them.
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].
Is it really credible that giving a pardon to all those persecuted under homosexuality laws would make us forget our shameful past? That does not seem credible to me, that just seems like a haphazard excuse.
If it was wrong to prosecute Alan Turing for being gay, and right to pardon him, then they should pardon every other gay man convicted of homosexual acts.
If they were convicted of both 'homosexual acts' and robbing a bank at the same time, then just pardon them of the 'homosexual acts'. Unrelated crimes are unrelated.
That's conviction for two separate acts, which is a different thing than, say, acts which are homosexual and also forcible or pedophillic or something. Note that I most explicitly don't mean to imply that these attributes are any more common of homosexual behavior than heterosexual, just that they can be attributes of the same act, and may even have been punished under the same statute.
So you are hypothesizing that they neglected to prosecute child molesters of child molestation, and instead prosecuted them merely for 'homosexual acts'?
That may be the case, but I find it unlikely. Are there any specific examples?
Frankly though, as plainly unfortunate as those situations may be, those people should still be pardoned. When the prosecution fucks up, bad people can be declared not guilty. Same principle here. It is a risk we accept in the system.
My understanding (which could totally be wrong) is that the charge is "gross indecency," not specifically labeled "homosexual acts." If it was the latter, some attention might still be merited but I agree I'd rather err on the side of caution (in terms of meting out punishment improperly).
Pardoning him explicitly seems ridiculous. Either pardon everyone as a statement that you find the law abhorrent or don't pardon anyone and allow the shame to guide further decisions.
Pardoning the popular examples just hides what you did, it doesn't acknowledge fault or error.
They shouldn't "pardon". If there were some other form of nullification, that might be ok, but did nothing wrong by modern standards, and "forgiving" him implies that he did, even if that isn't their intent. And any legal relief a pardon would give a living person is irrelevant.
Let the conviction stand as a historical marker of shame.
Instead, they should vote on an apology to him and all the other people wronged by the actions of their predecessors.
> but did nothing wrong by modern standards, and "forgiving" him implies that he did
One of the purposes of the pardon power is to nullify convictions where a law was broken but the conviction, justified as it might be by the law, was unjust in the specific context.
Now, its designed (on the premise that the law is always just in the general case) to deal with exceptional cases, but it is no less appropriate a vehicle for the case where the law failed to be just in general and thus any conviction under the law is unjust in its specific context.
Politicians are far from the only people who aren't pro-gay rights, feel free to hate the specific people for their opinions, but seems a bit pointless to hate politicians in general for having the same mixture of views as the general public.
Like the majority of people, I oppose gay marriage. But what the British government did with chemical castration to Alan Turing and others is absolutely reprehensible - and they should pardon all of them. Let's not conflate these issues please.
No, let's. If homosexuals should be allowed to experience their sexuality than why not permit them to fulfill their emotional, romantic, and other needs? It's such an artificial line to draw and we certainly can discuss both gay marriage and the legality of homosexuality in the same discussion.
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), but to change the very definition of marriage goes too far - and ends up confusing everyone.
In your previous comment, you took the view that your sentiments reflected a global representation, and you short-changed the person who replied to you for being so silly as to think you were talking about the USA when in fact you were talking about the entire planet. Now, in this thread, you hearken to "traditional families". You speak of a country that has "tax deductions". May I ask you to hone your platform and let us know from what level of generality you wish us to perceive your commentary?
> The problem arises that the legality of marriage was designed around traditional families.
This premise is debatable, but assuming it is true it's still not a particularly strong argument. The law was designed to be flexible and evolve with society's needs and desires.
Allowing gay marriage is a minor adjustment of what we in the US currently understand marriage to be - not a "changing of the very definition". If we were talking about polygamy that would be a much stronger case.
Society encourages and allows marriages for a variety of reasons - involving tradition, encouraging general stability, families, etc. It also has a certain understanding of marriage - a partnership between two people. Homosexual marriage vis a vis heterosexual marriage is the same in all these respects in practical terms.
To be clear, there are difference in say how gay couples reproduce (in general)...but there are differences in how heterosexual marriages reproduce too. The supposed fundamental "differences" in gay couples are already tolerated (or entirely unproblematic) in the hetero population so banning gay marriages as a means to discourage them is not a valid argument. It's an artificial distinction.
Let's be honest - opposition to gay marriage is based on religion, ignorance, or personal aesthetics. Hey, that's fine - we're all entitled to our beliefs ...but let's be explicit and honest about it instead of kidding ourselves and each other.
If you really do want to stick to this farce, then at least be consistent and start demanding people must pass fertility and mental health exams before they can be married - to prove that they can produce children and raise them in a healthy environment.
You arguments are good but not airtight. I'll pick out the ones I disagree with.
> To be clear, there are difference in say how gay couples reproduce
Straight couples can reproduce with their spouse - gays cannot. That's not just a difference, but a complete opposite.
>Let's be honest - opposition to gay marriage is based on religion, ignorance, or personal aesthetics.
I agree that most people oppose gay marriage because of religion, but religion may have underlying logical reasoning for it. I don't think ignorance/personal aesthetics is a reason, because if someone is intuitively disgusted by two males sodomizing, there may be a biological reason for it. Ignorance is better than false beliefs.
The reason I'm against gay marriage is that I don't want the definition to change, and I don't want my children having gay propaganda pushed on them. That's it. These are good reasons in my opinion.
> Straight couples can reproduce with their spouse - gays cannot. That's not just a difference, but a complete opposite.
Not really one relevant to much of the legality around marriage. About the only thing it even remotely connects to is the presumption of paternity (the default assignment of legal parental responsibility to the spouse of the biological mother of any child born during the marriage.) And, even then, its not really a problem. There are two different forms of the presumption, and which is adopted varies by jursidiction.
Rebuttable: In this model, the concept of rights and responsibility of biological parents as preeminent is maintained, but the spouse is presumptively assigned parental rights and responsibility, but this can be reversed if there is evidence that the spouse is not the parent. Obviously, in the case of same sex marriage, this is resolved simply, as the evidence is readily available to rebut the presumption in all cases.
Conclusive: This model is based on the priority of the marital relationship over biological parenthood for raising children, and in jurisdictions adopting this this model the spouse of the biological mother is conclusively assigned parental rights and responsibility with regard to any children born during the marriage. Obviously, there works just fine in same-sex marriage.
So, the same-sex-couples cannot reproduce with their spouse thing is a difference, but not one which seems especially problematic with regard to the legalities around marraige.
> The reason I'm against gay marriage is that I don't want the definition to change
That's not much of a reason.
Why do you think the current definition of marriage, the result of continuous change over an extended period of time, is so perfect that it should not continue to change?
> and I don't want my children having gay propaganda pushed on them.
What does that have to do with equal marriage one way or the other? You think that continuing to deny equal marriage is going to make gay rights advocates less vocal and omnipresent?
> Straight couples can reproduce with their spouse - gays cannot. That's not just a difference, but a complete opposite.
You're just stating explicitly the implicit argument I was refuting, but ok:
The difference is immaterial for our purposes. The fact that one or both parents in a family do not have a biological link to their children is irrelevant. It's a curiosity of genetics that has little-to-nothing to do with how a family functions on a social level, which is the level marriage laws operate on.
Are we banning adoptions and step-children now? Society has no reason to outlaw couples that can't reproduce together. Homosexuals can adopt, they can use surrogates, they can have children from previous marriages (ended in divorce, or death, etc). As long as we're think-of-the-children-ing it would be better all around to let those children grow up in families if possible.
More importantly, that's not a difference between heterosexual and homosexual couples - it's a difference between couples. Many straight people can not or will not reproduce with their spouse either - are we going to ban marriages between infertile people? Force people to have children?
The point is this: if you pick at random a married gay couple...and then pick at random a married straight couple....the difference between them will be no greater than the difference that we already tolerate between heterosexual couples. Therefore, you cannot argue that we must ban gay marriage on the basis of preventing some problematic aspect of gay marriage - any "problem" gay marriage is one heterosexual marriage also has. It's a largely artificial distinction. If not being able to have children together is SUCH a big deal, then argue against that and let gay couples be banned under that banner.
If you're going to ban it on the basis that a gay couple is statistically much more likely to have quality X, then quality X must be a VERY serious thing. Infertility is not serious enough to qualify.
Note too this situation may change. The science of reproduction is ever evolving and changing.
> These are good reasons in my opinion.
> is that I don't want the definition to change
This is either silly and arbitrary, or begging the question.
You don't want it to change why? Because you believe laws should never change? You're afraid of all the paper we'll waste printing out new forms? You don't want to have to memorize new legislation?
No, let's be honest - you don't want it to change because you don't agree with the proposed change. That's fine...but just state that instead of coming up with some silly dodge like "I don't want the definition to change".
> I don't want my children having gay propaganda pushed on them
Here I suspect is your most honest; you are against it because you don't like homosexuality. Fine, that's your right to feel that way. However you should just be honest with yourself and others and admit that, instead of providing silly and flimsy rationalizations which fall apart under any scrutiny.
Your stated reason for opposing gay marriage is that it involves tax deductions because children are an expensive commitment. Then, in the very next sentence, you say you don't support gay adoption. So you oppose gay marriage because they can't have the kids you want to keep from them?
Let me guess: You don't support gay adoption because gay parents can't afford it, what with not having marriage-related tax breaks?
> Child-based tax deductions should be based on what children a couple have, not on what gender the couple are.
Should... and are. You can receive child-based tax deductions even if you are not married at all. Whenever I hear the "deductions are for the children" thing brought up I take it as a clear sign that the person saying it has very limited life experience.
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.
To be fair, that's a rather US-centric viewpoint. Interracial marriage was not ever (as far as I am aware; I may be wrong) forbidden in the UK, for example.
> The problem arises that the legality of marriage was designed around traditional families.
The current legalities around marriage are mostly based directly on the idea that a marriage is a special bilateral promise of mutual support, and not much on other features of "traditional" families.
They've also changed a lot over the two centuries to remove most of the vestigious of the older model of the wife being legally subordinate to the husband. Marriage legalities, and the underlying model of the relationship in marriage on which they are based, aren't the product of some long-static "traditional" model that had been undisturbed for an extended period of time before the same-sex marriage debate.
> There's nothing that stops homosexuals from fulfilling their emotional, romantic, and other needs.
Actually, not having access to the legal rights involved in marriage does prevent that.
> But when you involved tax deductions because children are such an expensive commitment, it gets hairy.
The tax deductions on that premise require you to have children that you are responsible, they aren't an automatic consequence of marriage. So I don't see how they are relevant. The situation in which marriage has tax benefits is if, as part of a couple's arrangement of mutual support, one focuses more on work outside of the house (which is taxable) supported by the other taking on a heavier load of the domestic duties, since married couples pay lower taxes than two individuals when there is a significant disparity of income.
So I'm not sure how your statement above has anything to do with marriage. It seems to have something to do with not wanting people to get tax deductions or credits that come with raising children without actually raising children, which is sensible but completely irrelevant.
> I do support civil unions
Given your statement above about the "legality of marriage" and that "civil unions" as opposed to "domestic partnership" is usually the term given for providing the legalities of marriage under a different name, why?
> (but not gay adoption)
Why? Is it that you prefer children to have less chance of having permanent families and spend more time in foster homes? Or just because you dislike homosexuals?
> and I am tolerant of gays (I discuss these issues with friends who are gay)
And I'm sure they appreciate your magnanimity in deigning to discuss with them the reasons why you think they should receive unequal treatment under the law.
> but to change the very definition of marriage goes too far - and ends up confusing everyone.
"The very definition of marriage" has been pretty much continuously changing throughout all of history. Its not all that confusing, and, to the extent it is, your desire to avoid dealing with the confusion of changing social institutions isn't a reason other people ought to suffer discrimination.
Depends on how you define population. If I were to gamble on it, I would expect a (rather high) margin in opposition, with support rates highly correlated to education levels.
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 trending against you.
It is people like you who I make it my mission to fight against every single day.
It is people like you who feel so insecure that you have to force your ill-conceived morality on everyone.
It is people like you who completely misunderstand psychology, sociology and biology and insist upon strict gender binary. Which you then think justifies your one man one women bullshit.
It is people like you who would prevent me from marrying my beautiful girlfriend - thankfully I like in a more developed, forward thinking country.
It is people like you who would prevent me and my girlfriend from adopting children, despite the fact our household income is 4 times the national average and both of use would be loving stable parents with plenty of time off to take care of our children. Thankfully we like in a more developed country.
It is people like you that are the reason that I and several other people refuse to accept promotions or jobs that would require relocation to backwater countries like the USA.
It is people like you who one day history will see as pathetic and backwards.
Let me be absolutely clear on this. I hate you. I will never forgive you for what you have said and done. And I will do everything in my power to ensure you and people like you can never force your bullshit beliefs on me or anybody else. There have been too many murders, assaults, suicides and lost childhoods because of people like you.
The human race doesn't want you or need you. Have a nice day.
I said majority of people, not Americans. My statement stands correct. Look at what other countries have done to recently stem gay culture: Russia recently passed a unanimous (436-0) vote which banned gay propaganda[1]. Homosexuals acceptance is pushed hard in the western media, but don't let that skew your worldview. Reactionary responses are not uncommon.
You keep arguing with logical fallacies, but I'll respond anyway. Russia is doing quite well and just became the 5th largest economy[1]. They also have a news station (Russia Today) which reports on real issues - unlike western "mainstream" media. You act as if Russia is some backwater slump and not a growing modern nation. Meanwhile the western world is teetering into bankruptcy. You won't know which side of history is right until it actually becomes history.
America grew very well economically while - and partly due to - using African slaves. The European empires dominated the planet economically while believing they had a divine mandate to exploit the savages. Wealth generation has nothing to do with the goodness of a behaviour or attitude.
Do you think stance on gay rights is the cause of economic problems or Russia's current situation?
It's possible that some day the entire world will despise homosexuality, or that the entire world will be fine with it. Both of those scenarios could happen regardless of whether countries currently on one side or the other end up as the world powers.
Personally I believe that gay rights will keep on improving, not get worse, and therefore you are on the wrong side of history. But I could be wrong about that, so it's fine if you disagree with my prediction. Just, disagree with it using relevant logic, not unrelated situations.
If you remember to control for oil wealth when graphing "acceptance of homosexuality" against per capita GDP you'll probably be surprised by how well correlated they are...
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...
By using euphemisms like "stand for traditional marriage" you automatically lose the argument. You do not have to defend straight marriage. No one is against it. There's nothing to stand for. In fact you are against the other things. Your position is one of sanction and oppression, not support.
It's changing the definition of the word, so yes there is something to stand for. If you don't believe marriage needs defending, look at the rates of marriage. Now the meaning of marriage has been diluted so much, no one wants to get married anymore - there's no point except to possibly get benefits from the state.
I could have just as easily said people who use the term "homophobic" automatically lose the argument, as there's no fear involved. This is a battle of semantics - and if we want a quality debate then we need to keep definitions consistent.
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 reactionary swing to the left in the 1960/70's, there could very well be a reactionary swing back to the right that is emerging. (I'm using the archaic "left/right" metaphors just for sake of argument)
I am not calling for your execution in the streets, I am merely expressing glee at the fact that the American Taliban are dying of old age and heart disease faster than you can replenish your ranks.
If you think that makes me a bigot, then consider Karl Popper:
" Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. [...] We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant."
You should crack a book or two. You're only 19, your brain isn't fully formed yet. There is still hope that the damage is not irreversible.
On second thought...
> "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."
Words cannot express how shocked I am by this comment. I thought people as stupid as you were hyperbolic strawmen... Christ.
>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.
That is not at all what I said. He suggested that he supports me going away and dying out, and I think shouting out your opposition is intolerant.
>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 agree it's not relevant. I was responding to an equally irrelevant comment.
>I'm justice noticing that you're not even bothering to respond to the messages that completely disprove your points
I'm responding very frequently.
>"traditional marriage" is a nebulous term
Somewhat. But I have a webster's dictionary from the 60's and the definition of marriage quite clearly reads between a man and woman. Marriage having that meaning dates back centuries (millenia even?), back to its original conception. So it's pretty obvious that the "traditional" meaning is the original and longest standing one.
> But I have a webster's dictionary from the 60's and the definition of marriage quite clearly reads between a man and woman. Marriage having that meaning dates back centuries (millenia even?), back to its original conception.
Marriages that are not between a man and a woman (judging both by biological sex), varying in both the number of partners of either sex and whether, among the partners, are not even remotely unprecedented before the modern debate over the current restrictions of marriage to opposite-sex partners.
Its notable that in many cases these were well-established traditional practices that were pushed aside by the advance of Christianity in the effected regions, so that the Christian model of marriage was the one that was redefining marriage away from the its existing "traditional" form.
>I think shouting out your opposition is intolerant.
That is not what intolerance means. Saying that I find the fact, that you want to deny same sex couples rights, to be downright reprehensible is not oppressive to you or anybody else. The same cannot be said of your views..
>But I have a webster's dictionary from the 60's and the definition of marriage quite clearly reads between a man and woman.
Really. I'd appreciate it if you were to quote that definition verbatim, because quite honestly I do not believe you.
I also feel I must point out that "appeal to tradition" is a straight up logical fallacy.
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?
When "in" members of the Phelps family attend universities, by all accounts I have heard they present themselves as regular people. Sure they don't party, but for the most part they pretend to be regular well adjusted people.
Bigots hide what they are when it is advantageous.
>I've never seen a resume where the candidate listed anti-gay or anti-gay marriage advocacy groups.
This very fact should concern people. You rarely see people advertising their support for traditional marriage (especially in california/new york. There is a common misconception that supporting gay marriage is somehow a proud rebellious cause against the status quo. But the reality couldn't be further from the truth - virtually the entire media and up to the president support gay marriage. Organizations supporting traditional marriage will immediately be called "intolerant, bigoted, hate groups" and shouted out of the debate. There is something seriously wrong with that.
So no, I would not put any political organizations on my resume for a software engineering job. I rarely discuss politics/religion at work. I hope you wouldn't hire such people who jump on the bandwagon issue de jour.
>Organizations supporting traditional marriage will immediately be called "intolerant, bigoted, hate groups" and shouted out of the debate.
Stop couching your views in pseudo-PC language and call it what it is. You do not "support traditional marriage" because that is a meaningless phrase. Nobody is campaigning for traditional marriage to go away - you can go have one right now!
You are not supporting a thing, you are supporting keeping that thing from someone else.
What you ACTUALLY support is that people who happen to love someone of the same sex should not be able to marry. That they should not receive the same spousal and tax benefits as couples who love someone of the opposite sex.
>You are not supporting a thing, you are supporting keeping that thing from someone else.
Here lies the crux of the debate. You think straight people are keeping something away from gays. But I think its gays trying to take something from straight people.
Let's say I lived in a country that banned marriage entirely. I would still get married and it would be enough for me and my family to recognize that we are married. Gays can do the same thing - they're not restricted at all in what they can do these days. But they want something more - they want everyone to be forced to recognize their marriage. They get infuriated when straight people don't want to recognize them. So they are taking something - our freedom to interpret our own reality. This is a kind of rabbit hole type revelation that spans many other issues and underpins my fundamental opposition to statism/slavery.
> You think straight people are keeping something away from gays.
I don't think anyone thinks straight people are keeping something away from gays. After all, the proportion of the population that supports marriage equality is much greater than the proportion that is gay.
> But I think its gays trying to take something from straight people.
As someone in a stable, opposite-sex marriage, I'd like to know what it is that gays are trying to take away from me. What that I had before equal marriage came to my state have I lost? Because I don't see it.
> they want everyone to be forced to recognize their marriage.
What they want is for their committed life partnerships to be treated the same way under the law as those of people who happen to prefer a life partner of the opposite gender.
> So they are taking something - our freedom to interpret our own reality.
You are free to "interpret your own reality", and I doubt any equal marriage supporter will argue against your right to do so. Your freedom to do so, however, does not give you the right to deny others equal protection under the law. The concepts aren't even related.
> This is a kind of rabbit hole type revelation that spans many other issues and underpins my fundamental opposition to statism/slavery.
And that is the kind of sentence that doesn't even begin to make sense in context. WTF are you talking about, seriously?
>But I think its gays trying to take something from straight people.
A gay couple getting married does not in any way, shape, or form impact another striaght person's marriage, and I challenge you to prove otherwise.
You arguments are taken nearly VERBATIM from the anti-miscegenation movements of a few decades ago. Blacks marrying whites impacts the sanctity of traditional marriage and will harm children" and on and on and on.
There is almost no argument that marriage equality opponents use that wasn't also used against that back then. That alone should cause you to seriously think twice about the rhetoric you're using, here.
A few decades ago it was race mixing, now it's homosexuals. Same players, same arguments, same justifications.
This isn't really relevant to the point on any logical level beyond trivia, but still, think on it.
>They get infuriated when straight people don't want to recognize them.
The fact that you think this is very telling. It's completely wrong. It's that simple. This has nothing to do with what people think, it has nothing to do with feelings or emotions. It's about actions and causes and effects. Concrete, observable things.
I couldn't give two shits what you think of my relationships - that is your concern. Where I do care is when I am unconstitutionally denied rights for no good reason.
You are telling me that getting the same tax breaks a married couple does, the ability to see my partner in the hospital, that kind of thing, somehow, is SO deleterious to you in some fashion, so negative, that I should be denied those rights.
Fair enough. We're all adults here. Objectively define that negative impact and then we'll talk.
>So they are taking something - our freedom to interpret our own reality.
You can interpret your own reality however you wish.
You can not, however, violate the equal protection clause of the constitution to deny certain people rights just because you feel that it's icky (and I must point out that you haven't brought forward any argument yet that doesn't stem from your personal feelings).
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.
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.
> A straight person has the same rights as a homosexual person. They can both get married.
...to a person of the opposite sex.
> That's equal protection under the law.
This is pretty much the exact argument which was made, and ultimately rejected -- see, e.g., Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967) -- regarding anti-miscegenation laws, where it was argued that, under those laws, blacks and whites had the same rights, because they could each get married...to a person of the same race.
(Although in the restriction to opposite-sex marriage, the inequality is even more clear: anti-miscegenation laws could at least be argued to deny both blacks and whites the freedom to marry the person of their choice, and so to restrict the freedom of both races in the same way; you can't even make the parallel argument with the opposite-sex restriction.)
> What you want to do is change the definition of marriage
The definition of marriage changes all the time.
> Make a new word for gay marriage if you want
We didn't make a new word for mixed-race marriages when we threw out anti-miscegenation laws. We didn't make a new word for marriages where the woman could own property independent of the man when we threw out the rules prohibiting that. We didn't create new words for marriage each time the prohibited degree of kinship changed.
There's no need to change it when we throw out the restriction on the allowed combinations of genders, either.
> but leave the definition of marriage alone as changing it would break a lot of legacy code.
To the extent there are laws that need updated in the face of same sex marriage, they need updated to accommodate it equally if it a separate marriage-like institution with a different name is adopted.
Buying into the hype of government is what gives governments the power to commit senseless crimes like what was done to Alan Turing and many, many crimes that are much worse. The correct answer to "should the UK government pardon Alan Turing?" is "fuck off".
I view the gay marriage issue in the same light. I have gay friends that care deeply about marriage equality, but as much as I love them and they are my friends, I simply cannot sympathize. My answer to them is: "Live your life, do want you want to do, don't ask the government or anyone else for permission".
If worried about my status as defined by the U.S. government and the fairness I can expect from U.S. government, I would just kill myself now. Thankfully I realize that government is just another scam for me to avoid to the best of my ability.