Equal Rights » unsane

No pardon for Alan Turing

Equal Rights, Life, Morality 3 Responses »

Feb 072012

Alan Turing was one of the founding greats of computer science. He postulated concepts which are still in use today, and in fact in many circles is seen as the father of computer science.

He was also gay.

Sure, one might argue that if he had not been present, there might have been others to take his place. However, the British government (and indeed, the free Western World) should fully acknowledge that at that time and place, it was Alan Turing who was there. The war efforts were in no small part saved by a homosexual who headed the decryption team for German ciphers, and who saw those ciphers cracked.

That in 1952 he was prosecuted and found guilty for the ‘crime’ of being a homosexual, and had the ‘treatment’ of female hormones was an anachronistic tragedy; his subsequent suicide was a loss to the development of computer science. Like one might idly speculate where the world might be, from a technology perspective, had the dark ages not happened, one might equally wonder where computer science might have advanced to by now if this giant had not been taken from us; his suicide in 1954 by cyanide ingestion was a result of the severe depression he experienced not only on the hormone ‘treatment’ but also the public ridicule he experienced at the time.

In 2009 Gordon Brown offered a public apology from the British government for the treatment Turing received, and a campaign was started to grant him a posthumous pardon. That pardon may seem irrelevant, but it would be an acknowledgement that despite being legally acceptable at the time, the treatment of gays in that era was unacceptable from modern standards.

And the British House of Lords has denied that pardon.

This is a shameful act and sends entirely the wrong message – that we shouldn’t have to face our past on the basis of modern views of morality. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The world owes Alan Turing, and all the people still being persecuted for being same-sex attracted, this much at least.

Translating Margaret Court’s Opinion Piece in the Herald Sun

Equal Rights, Politics 3 Responses »

Jan 252012

Today in the Herald Sun, Margaret Court (yes, the same Margaret Court who has been complaining bitterly that she’s being stopped from talking) wrote an opinion piece entitled “Priority is to protect marriage“.

I thought I’d take a few minutes to translate what I’m reading in some of the key points she makes in the article.

“We live in a blessed nation but Australia is on a steep moral decline.”

Translation: Australia is refusing to stay locked into the moral code of Pleasantville, and I don’t like it.

“We are a country with a moral fabric and families and marriage are at its core.”

Translation: I am conveniently forgetting that one in three marriages in Australia end in divorce.

“We live in a world of moral values. Even those without faith know what is right and what is wrong.”

Translation: So long as they believe that I know is right and wrong, at least.

“Looking back, you can see that there has been a steep decline, especially when it comes to the issue of sexuality. There is so much scripture within the Bible that points to what we see happening now. We are losing that sense of discipline.”

Translation: Take, for instance, the discipline we lost when we started ignoring Timothy 2:12, “I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.” Look at all the crackpots that came out when we relaxed that stance, will you? Ahem. I don’t know where that came from. IGNORE TIMOTHY.

“Children need a mother and a faith – stability from a male and a female – and we are losing sight of this.”

Translation: Children with single parents should be adopted out to mixed-couple foster parents. Or at least, that’s the logical conclusion.

“The Book of Romans speak of the people of Earth trading in God.”

Translation: DON’T LOOK AT TIMOTHY! DON’T LOOK AT TIMOTHY. JUST ROMANS.

“we need to protect marriage because it has been God-ordained from the beginning.”

Translation: I’ll forget about all the historical evidence of same-sex marriages through the ages. AND YOU SHOULD TOO.

“God told man to be united with his wife and to multiply on earth.”

Translation: Please don’t think of the historical implications of this point of view. Otherwise, you’ll realise he must have also instructed Eve to have sex with her sons to continue to populate the earth, especially the son who killed his brother.

“People think it’s [the bible] a book of fear, but it’s not.”

Translation: There’s nothing more pleasant than reading children bedtime stories based on the bible. Such as that rainbow filled one about almost everyone on the planet being killed in a flood. Or that one about keeping slaves. Or that one about killing everyone who opposes god. Or that one about requiring the sacrifice of a son. No stuff of nightmares in that. And hell is really full of marshmellows for roasting.

“A nun at my primary school once gave me the cane”

Translation: Being beaten by a woman in a penguin suit didn’t affect my upbringing. See, I’m perfectly normal, aren’t I?

—

My only conclusion is that Margaret is now drunk on the attention she got from her original trolling and just can’t stop.

Please Margaret: get professional help.

What they say / what I hear

Equal Rights, Humour, Life No Responses »

Jan 172012

There are four really common rebuttals to homosexuality touted by various religions, and given that not only are homophobic men are very likely to be aroused by homosexual behaviour, but homophobic rebuttals tend to have minimal to no logic in them, I thought it worthwhile running through those four arguments – what they say, and what I hear when they say it.

Argument one:

Argument two:

Argument three:

Argument four:

So, be aware! If you try one of those arguments on me, you know now what I’ll be thinking.

Ratzinger vs Me

Equal Rights, Morality No Responses »

Jan 102012

Joseph Ratzinger has come out swinging again against homosexuality, claiming again that same-sex marriage is a threat to humanity.

I’ve put together a little table to compare the apparent threat I pose to humanity by wanting to get married to my partner, something a lot of people consider to be a threat to humanity – an institution known as the Catholic Church:

(Of course, I’m talking about the institution of the church here; I know many Catholics who are actually wonderful people.)

So, Ratzinger – do you really want to insist again that same sex marriage is a threat to humanity? I’m guessing yes. But don’t expect to sway me.

— finis —

References:

“Good Catholics Use Condoms“, stating that many in a position of power in the Catholic Church have promoted the idea that condoms cause AIDS.
“Galileo Affair“, Wikipedia.
“Rape: Weapon of war“, United Nations Human Rights.

Rampant WTFery

Equal Rights No Responses »

Jan 092012

In “Time for gay marriage to get the nod in Australia” (Herald Sun), Susie O’Brien argues:

We should encourage the bigoted, homophobic opponents of gay marriage to come forward and justify their desire to discriminate.

The vitriol levelled at Susie and gays in the comments exemplifies a lot of those attitudes:

Not only is it a sad inditement of the progress yet to be made on full rights for the GBLTIQ community, it really does make you pull back and ask … What The Fuck?

Sadly, it wasn’t the first time I’d read the “dinosaurs turned gay” argument, so I wasn’t surprised. That anyone could possibly in any logical or coherent way think that we understand enough of animals that died out tens of millions of years ago (or more popularly theorised now, evolved into birds) that we ‘know’ they all turned gay and stopped reproducing is staggering.

The “find a cure” argument is one that saddens me, since it assumes that homosexuality is a disease. As the old saying goes – homosexuality has been documented in hundreds of species, but homophobia has only been documented in one. In that scenario, what is natural, and what needs to be cured?

The continual notion of comparing same-sex marriage to marriage between humans and animals, or humans and corpses, or humans and iPods, etc., is just ridiculous. In each situation it tries to equate the decision entered into by two free thinking individuals with a “decision” made between one free-thinking individual and one inanimate object or animal. This is best countered with this excellent post over at Buzzfeed.

Susie is 100% right – it’s time to let the bigots to dish out all their arguments, so that they can be exposed to the harsh light of logic and compassion, so that we can organise help for these sad individuals and create a society where all people, regardless of sexuality, gender, race or belief (or atheism/agnosticism) can live freely and equally.

When there’s no lesser of two evils

Equal Rights, Life, Morality No Responses »

Jan 072012

There are some words I’m very careful to avoid using. “Hate” is the one I’m keenest to avoid, and lately I’ve realised I’m none to fond of the word “scorn” either, both for the mental images they summon. One which I used to toss around in my youth with (ha!) gay abandon was “evil”, but that too has become a word I find myself very reluctant to use – particularly when describing people.

Yet, when I consider the GOP Presidential selection campaign, I’m unable to express my feelings any other way than the following:

The GOP presidential selection race is a celebration of arch stupidity; it’s a deliberate, calculated embracement of mean spirited obtuseness with the goal of maximising divisiveness and persecution whilst appealing to the very worst parts of human nature – selfishness, cruelty, savageness and narcissism. They heap scorn on the poor, the non-heterosexual and the non-christians who dare to want to live their own lives as equals and with respect. They shit kick and they bully for no other reason than the simple fact that it’s a blood sport to ignorant fools and bigoted arseholes who are too afraid to step outside their own blinkered worldview to see life in the full glory it can be beheld. I wish injury or death on no-one, and yet, if I were the only person in the street and saw any of these candidates on fire, I doubt I could even bring myself to piss on them, they’re so abhorrent. They are all, without a doubt to me, fundamentally hateful individuals who bring no worth to the mental evolution of the human race.

That these people can be held up as paragons of morality or democracy by anyone at all is a sad inditement on the state of politics and the influence of radical religious belief in the United States.

For years I wondered what “GOP” stood for in relation to the republican party. It seems that, at best, it means “Glorifying Obtuse People”.

Making sense of gay rights

Equal Rights, Humour, Life No Responses »

Dec 292011

The extreme right, bigots, bogans, and other suppressors of social advancement often spout the nonsense that gays, lesbians, transexuals, intersexed and bisexual folk are after special rights when we talk about sensitive issues, such as say, the right to marry.

Since this is seemingly a really difficult concept to understand, I’ve decided to flowchart it. After all, flowcharts make complex and difficult decision processes much easier to understand.

Introducing the Flowchart

In case you’re confused, this is how you work out whether the GBLTI community are asking for special or equal rights:

So that there’s absolutely no confusion, I’ll provide two examples for the use of this flowchart.

Example 1: Asking for the right to randomly fondle strangers in public

Now, imagine if you will, a situation where the GBLTI community were actively campaigning for the right to fondle strangers in public. No, they’re not, this is just an example.

In this situation, the flowchart would guide us as follows:

The flowchart works! It clearly tells us that such a campaign would be a request for special rights, because it’s something that heterosexuals aren’t currently allowed to do.

Example 2: Asking for the right to marry the person we love

A current trending issue is that of same-sex marriage. That’s where the GBLTI community is asking for the right to marry the person they love. This flowchart would look like the following:

Wrapping Up

As you can see, even the most complex of conundrums, such as working out whether the GBLTI community are asking for special or equal rights, can be solved with a flowchart.

5,506 days

Equal Rights, Life 1 Response »

Dec 282011

Darren and I consider the start of our relationship proper to be 30 November 1996.

That means as of today, as I type this post, we’ve been together for 5,506 days. Yet somehow, we don’t qualify for marriage.

On the other hand:

Sinead O’Connor announced today that her and her latest husband split after 16 days (in which they only lived together for 7 days);
Kim Kardashian stayed married for 72 days;
Britney Spears stayed married for less 3 days (55 hours, to be exact);
Dennis Rodman and Carmen Electra were married for 9 days;
Lisa Marie Presley could only manage to stay married to Nicolas Cage for 107 days;
Pamela Anderson and Kid Rock got the big D after 122 days;
Drew Barrymore and Tom Green hitched their wagons for 163 days, though that was an improvement on her first marriage which lasted just 42 days;
Liz Taylor’s shortest (but by no means only) marriage was 205 days long.

(The majority of those figures were taken from “TIME’s Top 10 Short-Lived Celebrity Marriages“, you can find more in “Wikipedia – Hollywood Marriages“.)

Let’s graph those relationships:

That’s right, our relationship is the Pacman of relationships against those marriages.

And people still want to hold up the notion of marriage being exclusively between men and women as a way of preserving it?

What a joke.

Methinks he doth protest too much

Equal Rights, Humour, Life, Morality 1 Response »

Dec 102011

I’d heard about this study ages ago, and at the time it just seemed deliciously ironic. However, the last 15 years has well and truly proved to me that there’s a strong element of truth to it, too. After all, we’ve all heard about:

Ex-gay groups headed by gay men who supposedly overcome their desires, only to come out years later.
Pastors who lead churches that can “deliver” people from homosexuality, then take young men on trips overseas and “deliver” them happy endings.
Fire and brimstone preachers who end up getting caught with a $30 male prostitute … ahem … taking one for the team.
Politicians who pass anti-gay laws then get discovered looking for sex in urinals at airports.
Politicians who pass anti-gay laws and write papers called “Growing Up Straight: What Families Should Know About Homosexuality”, then hire rent boys to “carry their luggage”.

The list just goes on and on. There’s quite a few public lists out there that are worth checking out, such as this one, this one, and this one.

There are always titillating stories in the gay community of known politicians, sports people, etc., who don’t necessarily have the most gay-welcoming of public stances but privately lead a double life. Some of these stories undoubtedly are wishful thinking, but some are 100% accurate.

Now, returning to the study I mentioned at the start…

Someone tweeted about it this week, kindly reminding me of it (though I’ll admit I’ve unkindly forgotten who it was who sent it around – if it was you, let me know). It was conducted in 1996, and was titled: “Is homophobia associated with homosexual arousal?”

Quoting from the abtract:

“The authors investigated the role of homosexual arousal in exclusively heterosexual men who admitted negative affect towards homosexual individuals.”

They broke the study up into two groups – a collection of 35 men who were homophobic, and a collection of 29 men who had no issue with gays.

They then proceeded to show the men “stimuli” – aka, “porn”, of 3 varieties: regular heterosexual porn, gay male porn, and lesbian porn. As would be expected, both groups got rather excited about the heterosexual porn and lesbian porn.

However, what was the real corker – and something just about anyone in the gay community would attest to – was that the homophobic men were the only group to get aroused about gay male porn. That’s right:

“Homophobia is apparently associated with homosexual arousal that the homophobic individual is either unaware of or denies.”

So, next time some guy starts blathering on homophobically about gays, just ask yourself this one question:

Is he a top, or a bottom?

On female preachers standing against same-sex marriage

Equal Rights, Life, Morality No Responses »

Dec 072011

The Reverend Margaret Court, a former tennis player, and leader of a church in Perth, has today come out swinging against same-sex marriage, saying:

“To dismantle this sole definition of marriage and try to legitimise what God calls abominable sexual practices that include sodomy, reveals our ignorance as to the ills that come when society is forced to accept law that violates their very own God-given nature of what is right and what is wrong.”

(“Legend condemns gay marriage“, thewest.com.au, 7 December 2011).

To Margaret, and any other female pastor who has the audacity to decry same sex relationships, and claim to be on some moral high ground when it comes to attacking the GBLTI community, I say this:

I strongly believe you’re acting like a hypocrite, and likely a bigot, too.

Why?

Because like so many who cling to religious authority to deny equal rights, you conveniently ignore any biblical directive that doesn’t suit your purpose. And in this case, let’s consider Timothy 2:11-12:

“A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or have authority over a man; she must be silent.”

Female pastors, reverends, whatever you call yourselves; don’t preach to me that I’m a sinner, or that I shouldn’t be allowed to get married. By the religious tenants that you cling to, not only are you going against god’s will by seeking to “teach” or have “authority” over me as a man, you’re in a position of authority in a church, which is also by your own bible against god’s will.

If you’re prepared to speak without hypocrisy, I’ll listen. Until then, shut up: by your own religion, your opinion is worthless and immoral.

Older Entries

unsane