Marking 50 Years Since Alan Turing's Death

erroneous writes "Today is the 50th anniversary of the death of Alan Turing: mathematician, code breaker, and computer pioneer. He was today commemorated in his home city of Manchester, UK." Here are stories at the BBC and at The Register.

Comments

Subverted

[sakusha]

The article makes it seem like Turing has been adopted as the cause celebre of gay rights activists, and is memorialized for his lifestyle and his tragic death rather than his amazing accomplishments in mathematics. How fucked up is that?

Re:Killed by the society he saved.

[dotz]

I think, that the real problem is, that some of gays don't act really normal (well, that's the same for many of our heterosexual friends, but that's not the case right now) - they try to act like they were girlies, while that's in my opinion not a behaviour I could accept. Many of my male friends are gay - and I don't really care, what's their sexuality - unless they act like a pussy. I still think, that in ordinary situations, a man has to act like a man - and if I use the term "gay" to describe disparagement - I only mean people, who act like that. That's something, that doesn't really depend on what your sexuality is. Just think about it.

zerg

[Lord Omlette]

Please honor his memory and love a fag today.

Re:Killed by the society he saved.

[dvk]

> considering a leader of a democratic nation wants to amend the constitution in order to deny rights to the homosexual segment of the population.

WRONG.
Last time I checked, homosexuals have exactly the same right as heterosexuals - to join in a government-registered union (a.k.a. marriage) with a member of the opposite sex.

AGAIN, there's absolutely nothing prohibiting homosexuals to marry, thus it's not a question of equal rights.

This issues are:
1) What is defined as marriage.
2) How that state (as defined in Q.#1) affects government laws/policy.

And guess what, when it comes to DEFINING marriage, it is logical to propose that only a man and a woman are married, since that is what is required to raise children by human evolution.

By the way, before you flame me based on some "people don't get married to have kids" and other similar arguments used in defending gay marriage, I officially state that my position on the issue:
IMO, ALL (100%) of government policy (such as taxes, inheritance, benefits, many others) be defined EXCLUSIVELY in terms of having/raising kids, NOT of state-or-religoin-or-whatever-sanctioned state of cohabitation. Again, if you're married with no kids, you're treated 100% as if you were two separate adults. End of story. No more unequal treatment of gay couples compared to straight ones.
We seem to have forgotten that the whole set of family/marriage incentives primarily originated to benefit not the married couple itself but their raising kids.

Leave it to /. to mod left-wing propaganda lie as +5 Insiteful.

> One has to wonder if President Bush would approve of forcing chemical castration on homosexuals today.

No, one has to wonder why such idiotic drivel got modded up. Then again, it's /.

Oh, and in case you want to anti-bible-thump again, the Kernel of Judeo-Christian norality (A.K.A. Old Testament) explicitly does NOT condemn gays, only hay sex - and for totally un-discriminatory reason. That prohibition is of the same set as onanism/sodomy/bestiality/any other type of sex where a man's sperm is not used inside a female reproductive organs. In other words, wanting to screw a guy is not a sin. Doing so is. Please note the difference.
Interestingly enough, Old Testament has no prohibition on lesbian sex at all - it was later prohibited by Rabbis as "indecent behavior", but such prohibition has a lot less religious weight than what the Book says.

-DVK