Alan Turing
Like many, I know Alan Turing for his mathematics and cryptology, and especially for his invaluable role in WWII for cracking the Nazi’s enigma code.
Wikipedia says:
Turing is often considered to be the father of modern computer science. He provided an influential formalisation of the concept of the algorithm and computation with the Turing machine. In 1999 Time Magazine named Turing as one of the 100 Most Important People of the 20th Century for his role in the creation of the modern computer, stating: “The fact remains that everyone who taps at a keyboard, opening a spreadsheet or a word-processing program, is working on an incarnation of a Turing machine.”
During the Second World War, Turing worked at Bletchley Park, Britain’s codebreaking centre, and was for a time head of Hut 8, the section responsible for German naval cryptanalysis. He devised a number of techniques for breaking German ciphers, including the method of the bombe, an electromechanical machine that could find settings for the Enigma machine.
What I did not know is that Turing was gay, and he was effectively castrated in 1952 for being gay. Turing had a brief consensual relationship with an Arnold Murray, who then broke into his house with an accomplice and robbed it. The Police investigated and when the homosexual relationship between Turing and Murray became evident, charged Turing with gross indecency.
He was convicted and given a choice between imprisonment, or chemical castration via oestrogen hormone injections. Two years later he killed himself.
How appalling that this happened just 50 or so years ago in a so called civilised society. And to a man whose genius helped the Allies win WWII.
This has become topical due to a petition posed on the 10 Downing Street website calling for justice for Turing. This led to an official response from Gordon Brown who said:
Turing was a quite brilliant mathematician, most famous for his work on breaking the German Enigma codes. It is no exaggeration to say that, without his outstanding contribution, the history of World War Two could well have been very different. He truly was one of those individuals we can point to whose unique contribution helped to turn the tide of war. The debt of gratitude he is owed makes it all the more horrifying, therefore, that he was treated so inhumanely. In 1952, he was convicted of ‘gross indecency’ – in effect, tried for being gay. His sentence – and he was faced with the miserable choice of this or prison – was chemical castration by a series of injections of female hormones. He took his own life just two years later.
Alan deserves recognition for his contribution to humankind. For those of us born after 1945, into a Europe which is united, democratic and at peace, it is hard to imagine that our continent was once the theatre of mankind’s darkest hour. It is difficult to believe that in living memory, people could become so consumed by hate – by anti-Semitism, by homophobia, by xenophobia and other murderous prejudices – that the gas chambers and crematoria became a piece of the European landscape as surely as the galleries and universities and concert halls which had marked out the European civilisation for hundreds of years. It is thanks to men and women who were totally committed to fighting fascism, people like Alan Turing, that the horrors of the Holocaust and of total war are part of Europe’s history and not Europe’s present.
So on behalf of the British government, and all those who live freely thanks to Alan’s work I am very proud to say: we’re sorry, you deserved so much better.
Thank God the vast majority of people no longer think it should be a crime to be gay, let alone that castration is an appropriate treatment.
September 11th, 2009 at 11:37 am
And it was only 20 years or so ago that gay sex was illegal in New Zealand, though the punishments were less harsh.
I didn’t know that stuff about Turing, though. Interesting stuff.
September 11th, 2009 at 11:39 am
Well said, DPF. There have been many disgraceful persecutions of people for the crime of being different. We should absolve and protect all those prosecuted for victimless crimes.
September 11th, 2009 at 11:44 am
“Thank God the vast majority of people no longer think it should be a crime to be gay, let alone that castration is an appropriate treatment.”
And yet there are plenty of people around even today who would consider it a perfectly appropriate treatment. I’m not among them I hasten to add, but you don’t have to go too far to find them.
September 11th, 2009 at 11:45 am
There was a decent TV film about Turing called “Breaking the Code”. Derek Jacobi puts in a superb performance as Turing. It focuses on his personal life more than the Bletchly/ENIGMA work. It’s worth a look if you’re interested in the man.
September 11th, 2009 at 11:46 am
He’s always been one of my heros. I especially liked the genius of the Church-Turing thesis which could be put into laymans terms as “Anything computable can be computed on a computer”. It has set a very lasting boundary around what can be achieved with computation. Amazing for someone so early in such a dynamic field. Also, I still think his beliefs about the difficulties that Artificial Intelligence would face were prophetic, and his Turing Test helped change a lot of notions about what intelligent thought really is.
His outrageous treatment at the hands of the authorities is especially bizarre when you consider that few people actually did more to help win WW2 than he did. Just goes to show how fucked up people can be about matters relating to sex.
September 11th, 2009 at 11:49 am
It’s a changing old world isn’t it? Only last year the Dutch legalised gay sex in a public park, while instituting fines for dogs not being kept on a leash. I imagine that 50 years ago Turing’s dog would have been spared any similar injustice.
Edit: Philonz – Think i recall seeing that. An excellent piece of viewing it was too.
September 11th, 2009 at 11:55 am
It would be interesting to learn more about the “Gross Indecency” charge in Britain and how many other Britons were handed this apalling sentence.
September 11th, 2009 at 11:59 am
“What I did not know is that Turing was gay.”
Read more Neal Stephenson
September 11th, 2009 at 12:00 pm
I doubt Turing was gay at all – the word not being stolen until well after Turing died and very few gay people committed suicide when gay was correctly used.
I make no comment about homosexuality or it’s acceptance socially or legally except to express surprise that it is not mandatory given the last NZ government, nor about the justice of Turing’s prosecution, just hope that this is not yet another attempt to change history.
It happened then, it doesn’t now.
Move on.
Just recognise Turing for his accomplishments.
September 11th, 2009 at 12:01 pm
And in a fifty years when sharia is the law of the land in the UK it will be illegal again. At least they didn’t hang Turing like they do to homosexuals in Iran today.
September 11th, 2009 at 12:03 pm
Another all round top matematician/physicist/computer-scientist/economist at the same time as Turing was John von Neumann who also helped the Allies to win WW2 via his participation in the Manhattan Project.
von Neumann also proposed the Von Neumann universal constructor (machines that can build and replicate themselves) which is a more universal concept that the Turing Machine, proposed by Alan Turing. It may be that the Terminator movie producers got their idea from Von Neumann universal constructor.
Is Dr Muriel Newman former ACT MP (which I understand that she is a mathematician) has any relation to the great John von Neumann (although Muriel has only one ‘n’ in her last name)? Anyone knows?
September 11th, 2009 at 12:12 pm
wow, thats messed up.
ya think he woulda gone to jail!
September 11th, 2009 at 12:14 pm
I have had a series of connections with Turing, and was at once fascinated by his genius and repulsed by his personal life. Turing was a complex and tragic character. His life and death are worthy of a Greek play. His own relationships were disastrous. Fascinated by Disney’s Fantasia and Snow White movies, he suicided by eating a poisoned apple. Genius and madness tracking close.
September 11th, 2009 at 12:15 pm
Well said, DPF.
However, we still have one disgraceful law on our statute books here in New Zealand in that regard – the Adoption Act which prevents gay and lesbian couples from adopting a child as a couple.
And don’t forget that it was less than five years ago that Damien O’Connor, Shane Ardern, Bill English, Georgina Te Heuheu, Tariana Turia, Sandra Goudie, Gerry Brownlee, Maurice Williamson, David Carter, Phil Heatley, Simon Power, John Carter, Paul Hutchison, Ross Robertson, Tony Ryall, Judith Collins, John Key, Wayne Mapp, Lockwood Smith, Clayton Cosgrove, Murray McCully, Nick Smith, and Peter Dunne – all of whom are still in Parliament – voted against the Civil Union Act at Third Reading.
September 11th, 2009 at 12:20 pm
That’s still quite a comment.
September 11th, 2009 at 12:24 pm
“His life and death are worthy of a Greek play.”
There is a play about him, which I saw some years ago in Wellingon – can’t remember the name, but it was reasonably frank, and sometimes critical, of his personal life. Didn’t mention the chemical castration, though.
September 11th, 2009 at 12:26 pm
I believe the official secrets act applied to the Bletchley work at the time, so there was no way anybody could stand up in court and say, look, this guy’s a war hero.
That 2001 ‘Enigma’ movie becomes painful when you know this story, consider its hetrosexual-affairs plot.
I also heard the story that Turing’s apple-related death may have prompted the apple computer logo (edit: story doesn’t seem to be supported by facts).
September 11th, 2009 at 12:31 pm
This smells of a beat up to me.
Can anyone show that Alan Turing was actually convicted of “Gross indecency”?
He lost his security clearance thats unambiguous, and hardly an injustice given the climate of the times, but for the rest of this sorry tale there doesn’t seem to be much hard fact at all.
I am unconvinced but am open to being convinced with the provision of hard evidence.
September 11th, 2009 at 12:34 pm
“Thank God the vast majority of people no longer think it should be a crime to be gay, let alone that castration is an appropriate treatment.
Well It seems a reasonable option to me especially in cases of repeated rape or child molestation. As for TURING well as someone commented it would depend on what the gross indecency was.
September 11th, 2009 at 12:37 pm
The criminal law at the time must have adopted some weird presumptions for a charge of ‘gross indecency’ to stick. It would seem that ‘gross indecency’ was presumed if two males cohabited or went into a hotel room etc together. Flatting did not occur then, single people generally boarded with some dragon-like 20 watt (the size of bulb you were allowed in your room) landlady.
Prior to homosexual law reform in UK and NZ consensual anal intercourse (ie sodomy) between husband and wife in their own bedroom was a serious crime, although it woud be detected through freak circumstances only.
Also because sodomy and gross indecency associated with homosexuality were crimes, the offenders were very susceotible to blackmail, and the KGB did not hesitate to exploit this to obtain secrets. A single non-homosexual filing clerk with a top secret clearance was successfully compromised merely because he visited a prostitute each Saturday after the football match he watched.
September 11th, 2009 at 12:40 pm
Yes, Neal Stephenson’s _Cryptonomicon_ is a (decent-sized) novel about Turing, and also about the present day. Stephenson’s a geek, so you get interesting digressions on information theory (Being able to break enigma gives us an advantage. But if the Nazis know we can break their code, then they’ll stop using it, and we lose that advantage. So we can’t be too obvious – we need to make it look like we’re just lucky..)
I also read part of a biography of John von Neumann. That’s a guy who can make you feel inferior. Born with a photographic memory, he had read and understood his father’s encyclopaedia set by age 10. When he finished school, he wanted to study maths, but his family felt there was no career in it and he should study engineering instead. So he enrolled in two universities simultaneously, studying engineering in one and turning up at the other only to sit exams. By age 21 (or so) he had a PhD in maths from Vienna, a degree in Engineering from Berlin, and a post-grad degree in (I think) chemical engineering from Zurich.
September 11th, 2009 at 12:48 pm
For those who want to know more, there’s a good biography by Andrew Hodges.
September 11th, 2009 at 12:48 pm
“Thank God the vast majority of people no longer think it should be a crime to be gay, let alone that castration is an appropriate treatment.”
Unfortunately, only 22 comments into the thread and already I’ve counted:
1 Saying explicitly that castration doesn’t seem unreasonable in their opinion
2 Saying it “must” be untrue and a beat-up by some sort of “rainbow faction”
1 Charming joke about what the Muslims will do when they impose Sharia law in NZ.
So there’s a good majority of fair-minded people, but the evil side of humanity is still not very far away…
September 11th, 2009 at 12:54 pm
1 Charming joke about what the Muslims will do when they impose Sharia law in NZ.
I must have missed that one, are you making shit up again?
September 11th, 2009 at 12:56 pm
For those who want to know more, there’s a good biography by Andrew Hodges.
Who also wrote With downcast gays: Aspects of homosexual self-oppression (Paperback)
Which is why my skepticism antennae are twitching
September 11th, 2009 at 12:58 pm
And don’t forget that it was less than five years ago that ……. – all of whom are still in Parliament – voted against the Civil Union Act at Third Reading.
Are you aghast that some people have a different opinion to your own?
September 11th, 2009 at 1:06 pm
Yes, a wonderful thing that being gay is no longer a crime. But you still see mild versions of the intolerance that put Turing through hell. The recent SPCA crusade against the Tongan family who, following what is acceptable to them, but not the SPCA apparently, (humanely) killed the dog and ate it. SPCA cited nothing more than cultural differences to defend their position. “That’s not how we do it here” said the British (why is it always the British?) head of the SPCA. Shame on Garth Halliday and the SPCA for their intolerance.
September 11th, 2009 at 1:24 pm
I would not expect to fully support Gordon Brown, but I here salute him.
I was aware of Turing’s history, both personal and historical, and am pleased to see him being openly honoured.
September 11th, 2009 at 1:29 pm
I see Repton has already posted about Cryptonomicon, which I was going to mention. Yes, it is a very good-sized book about Turing etc. I think in the book he commits suicide by eating a poisoned apple like the witch makes for Snow White, although it’s been a while since I’ve read it. I think he was a fan of the movie. It was a good read though, although over long in parts. There is a very funny – almost Douglas Adams-ish – part in the middle about a jeep called the ‘Grace of God’ and an Asian driver whose name sounds like John Wayne but isn’t.
I can’t remember reading that turing was convicted of anything or castrated though, but as I say it’s been a long while since I read it.
As a Christian, I have to say that I believe the Bible condemns same-sex coupling, although i do not believe that people should be at all persecuted for feeling that way. The Catechism of the Catholic Church says –
I saw a priest on TV recently, Fr Corapi, who had a discussion with a homosexual man, and to whom Corapi said that they were very similar to one another: they are both called to chastity.
What upsets me is when ‘gay’ people claim that all society should accept their sexual practices as normal (which they aren’t) and seem to think they should be able to get married etc. In my eyes, this makes a mockery of marriage.
September 11th, 2009 at 1:32 pm
andrei:
If you’re not going to accept Gordon Brown (http://www.number10.gov.uk/Page20571) has his facts right, or take something from a book or, I assume, the internet, I suggest you pop over to blighty and look the records up yourself.
It was a crime at the time. Where is the lack of credibility?
September 11th, 2009 at 1:33 pm
RRM – I was stating fact. Gays get hung in Iran. When Sharia law is established in European countries they will be there too. And that is definately not a joke, you twat. It is frightening and may well come about in our lifetimes.
September 11th, 2009 at 1:40 pm
Just looked at your last line again, which is kind of a strange sentence. Is your “thanking God” a throwaway line, or did you actually mean it? The God of the Bible has definite ideas on the rightness and wrongness of homosexuality.
September 11th, 2009 at 1:41 pm
“What upsets me is when ‘gay’ people claim that all society should accept their sexual practices as normal (which they aren’t) and seem to think they should be able to get married etc.”
Why does it upset you that other people think their own practices are normal? That’s a pretty normal human perception I would have thought.
And they want their relationships legally recognised? Hard for me to see harm in that.
Show us the victims if you think there is a real problem.
September 11th, 2009 at 1:46 pm
Just remembered about John Gielgud’s 1953 conviction for “persistently importuning for immoral purposes” in 1953. There was something of a stir at the time when he had the bad fortune to be noticed by the press. But apparently a polite silence about it from all his biographers until after he died.
September 11th, 2009 at 1:51 pm
Andrei, you are quite right not to trust anything written by a gay. To be perfectly safe though, I would recommend that you wear a foil-lined pith helmet at all times, to prevent the gay conspiracy from beaming their lies directly into your brain.
September 11th, 2009 at 1:54 pm
He also has very definite ideas on the rightness and wrongness of certain dietary habits, women (especially menstruating ones), pigs (he really has it in for pigs), children born out of wedlock, Egyptians and hair around the temples on men. Oh, and left handed people.
September 11th, 2009 at 1:55 pm
Oh, now, well that is the question isn’t it?
For a start, I think that it’s wrong to teach children in classrooms that homosexuality is normal and natural. There are studies which show it is downright dangerous – with an even higher mortality rate than smoking.
There are issues with monogamy, lifespan, heath (mental and physical), disease, and I could go on, and we want to inflict these problems onto children?
September 11th, 2009 at 2:01 pm
This is almost certainly a load of codswallop – typical bleating homosexual activist bullshit.
The concept of Chemical Castration does not appear in any literature prior to 1981 that I can find. And yet we are expected to believe that UK courts were sentencing people to it in 1952.
With what drug? Who made it and how?
Still grievance monkeys will whine and believe what they want to facts not withstanding – I mean whats does historical truth matter when there is an agenda to promote
September 11th, 2009 at 2:04 pm
“What upsets me is when ‘gay’ people claim that all society should accept their sexual practices as normal ”
Are priests’ sexual practices normal? I am talking about the aim of total abstinence of course.
Smokers (abnormal)and left handed people (minority normal) also have reduced life expectancy.
September 11th, 2009 at 2:05 pm
Hey fletch, I thought that quote would have been fine if it hadn’t been from a website called “Americans for Truth About Homosexuality”, and from a study by a doctor that the Canadian Psychological Association had said “consistently misinterpreted and misrepresented research on sexuality, homosexuality, and lesbianism”, and the APA has said “We are concerned about Dr. Cameron because we do believe that his methodology is weak.”
Not that I want to get into this argument, but pick your sources carefully, eh.
September 11th, 2009 at 2:07 pm
Chris, a lot of that was instruction to keep the Israelites healthy during their long trek to the promised land, and some of it is just common sense. I heard recently the science is just coming to understand how unhealthy pigs are to eat; apparently they are natures equivalent of rubbish collectors – Pigs eat garbage – that’s what they eat. We eat the pigs, so what are we eating?
Years before anyone knew about germs, God was telling the Israelites – don’t touch that; if you touch this then wash your hands first; wash your utensils before eating; if your food touches something unclean then don’t eat it, etc. And it kept them healthy.
Now supposing there were no pigs today – do you think we’d be worrying about Swine Flu?
September 11th, 2009 at 2:13 pm
With what drug?
You haven’t actually done any reseach at all, have you? Go look.
(Granted it probably wouldn’t qualify as chemical castration by modern standards, so much as chemical screwing-you-up, but destroying the libido with drugs was presumably the intention.)
September 11th, 2009 at 2:13 pm
LOL, of COURSE the APA said that. All six of the six most prominent psychologists of the American Psychological Association are gay, and so what do you think they’d say? I’ve read that a lot the data was collected by looking at obituaries though, in newspapers, and that seems a very fair and unbiased way to collect data.
Feel free to disagree with me, but i believe the data.
September 11th, 2009 at 2:14 pm
I don’t eat meat, Fletch, so I share God’s concerns about the consumption of pigs. However, I thought he would have had something to say about mad cow disease, scrapie and anthrax too. Otherwise he’s just picking on the pigs.
September 11th, 2009 at 2:16 pm
mmmmmm snouts and entrails..
September 11th, 2009 at 2:18 pm
What proportion of pigs eat garbage? In NZ a handful of domestic pigs maybe. No commercial or wild pigs, which must be 99.9%+ of the pigs here.
September 11th, 2009 at 2:18 pm
Chris – and there is the slight problem with big religion. God hasn’t sent any new instructions down for a while – to any of them, so they have to reply on interpreting thousand(s) of yearss old texts in modern contexts.
September 11th, 2009 at 2:18 pm
Fuck I mangled that last sentence but you know what I mean.
September 11th, 2009 at 2:21 pm
Enlighten me – give me a reference naming what it was he was “treated with” or anybody back in 1952 was “treated with”.
Bet you can’t.
September 11th, 2009 at 2:22 pm
Try that line on a cop who stops you for speeding
September 11th, 2009 at 2:23 pm
um..!..fletch..!
“..The God of the Bible has definite ideas on the rightness and wrongness of homosexuality..”
but wait..!..there’s more..!
http://whoar.co.nz/2009/the-bibles-bad-bits-silent-women-mass-murder-and-a-weary-concubine/
“..“..Biblical verses apparently endorsing sexism, genocide and the slaughter of sorceresses have been identified by readers of a Christian website as the least endearing parts of the holy book.
The online survey by shipoffools.com, a humorous online magazine, lists the ten verses people would rather had been left out of the Bible..
.. in an attempt to show the dangers of quoting scripture selectively.
St Paul’s advice about whether women are allowed to teach men in church came top of the “Worst Verse” poll, which received more than 1,000 responses.
The results were discussed last night by a panel of theologians at the Greenbelt Festival in Cheltenham. In 1 Timothy ii, 12, St Paul is quoted thus: ..
..“I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.”
The verse has been used by some conservative Christians to justify opposition to women priests.
In second place is the order by Samuel, one of the early leaders of the Israelites, for his people to commit genocide: ..
..“This is what the Lord Almighty says … ‘Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have.
Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.’” (1 Samuel xv, 3).
Moses’s indictment of witchcraft, in Exodus xxii, 18 came third:..
.. “Do not allow a sorceress to live.”
Other disliked verses include Psalm 137, which features a line that is rarely spoken in church: ..
..“Happy is he who repays you for what you have done to us / He who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks.”
Another distasteful set of verses features in Judges xix, 20-25, when a man is trapped in his house by a hostile crowd ..
.. and sends out his concubine to placate them.
She is raped “throughout the night” and eventually returns to the house to collapse in the doorway.
His response is simply to tell her to get up.
“But there was no answer. Then the man put her on his donkey and set out for home.”
so..y’know..!..
eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
September 11th, 2009 at 2:24 pm
Fletch,
Your social-engineering plans are ambitious, but why stop there? Vegetarianism increases life-expectancy. A calorie-restricted diet may increase it even more.
September 11th, 2009 at 2:32 pm
andrei:
It was probably diethylstilbestrol. If you need a drug name to convince you.
September 11th, 2009 at 2:33 pm
No it doesn’t. It just seems like it does.
September 11th, 2009 at 2:34 pm
Bet you can’t.
That link to the Gordon Brown statement that you didn’t read earlier? What’s the prize?
September 11th, 2009 at 2:34 pm
andrei:
It was probably diethylstilbestrol. My link didn’t work, so you should perhaps Google it.
September 11th, 2009 at 2:36 pm
Ryan, I’ve done a LOT of reading on the subject, and I’m sure you don’t want me to cut and paste here. But I can tell you that AIDS is still a predominantly gay issue in the US –
I could go on and on…
September 11th, 2009 at 2:38 pm
Toad
“However, we still have one disgraceful law on our statute books here in New Zealand in that regard – the Adoption Act which prevents gay and lesbian couples from adopting a child as a couple”
Nothing disgraceful about it at all.
September 11th, 2009 at 2:44 pm
Absolutely, Fletch. And red meat is associated with bowel cancer. Atheism is associated with higher intelligence. And so on.
If you think the job of public education is to preach rather than teach, and preach in line with statistically based longevity projections and similar such things, why stop with just “tell kids not to be gay”?
September 11th, 2009 at 2:44 pm
“..I could go on and on…”
as you do..as you do..
there are three reasons you come/comment here..
one is yr (biblical-based) gay-bashing..
two is yr opposition to abortion..
and three is yr advocating of the ripping away of state support for those sole-parents/mothers who don’t abort their children/babies..
or the sole-fathers who take o that responsibility..
(and all this is what makes you a ‘christian’..eh..?..)
..(go figure..!..eh..?
you ‘care’ for them until their birth..eh..?
..then they can just go rot..eh..?
(are you a tad ‘confused’..?..there..fletch..?)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
September 11th, 2009 at 2:45 pm
Fletch, what are the stats re gay women? Because of course in recent years chosen carefully anyone sufficiently malevolent and unscrupulous could use the Aids epidemic to produce adverse results for gay men, couldn’t they?
The simple fact is that the normal population contains a whole mix of sexual orientations – many with a clear physical basis.
I don’t have much respect for any religious beliefs that set out to persecute or ostracise any minority which is doing no harm to anyone else.
Likewise, I believe the role of education is to inform rather than to convert. That applies equally to religion and sexuality.
September 11th, 2009 at 2:46 pm
andrei, I don’t believe anyone can be quite as bigoted and stupid as you appear to be, so I imagine you’re indulging in some kind of leg pull. In case you’ve taken in anyone who really is that stupid, Turing was injected with oestrogen, which should probably be called organotherapy rather than chemical castration.
September 11th, 2009 at 2:48 pm
Lyndon;
was chemical castration by a series of injections of female hormones
Which “female hormone” in particular, remember it has to be one available in 1952.
This story is BULLSHIT face up to it
September 11th, 2009 at 2:50 pm
Fletch,
“I heard recently the science is just coming to understand how unhealthy pigs are to eat; apparently they are natures equivalent of rubbish collectors – Pigs eat garbage – that’s what they eat. We eat the pigs, so what are we eating?”
WTF mate? There’s nothing particularly special about pigs in a dietary sense. And what do you mean by garbage? You make very little sense at all.
I’m sure those who wrote the stories in the bible 2000 odd years ago had funny ideas about pigs, like they had about a lot of things. We’ve moved on a tad since then…
September 11th, 2009 at 2:52 pm
why aren’t you a vegan..?..fletch..?
(i cd dig out some biblical-quotes for you..supporting this..
if you need them..?..as the impetus to make yr change..?..)
and the health/longevity/no bowel cancer/diabetes etc etc….
surely must resonate with you..
esp as your homosexual-concerns have a ‘health’-foundation…eh..?
and aren’t just an example of the most unchristian kind of prejudice..eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
September 11th, 2009 at 2:53 pm
andrei,
“The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved marketing of diethylstilbestrol in 1941 and conjugated equine estrogens (CEE) in 1942 for treatment of menopausal symptoms.”
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16414329
Satisfied now?
September 11th, 2009 at 2:55 pm
Diethylstilbestrol, once more. Found to be quite an aggressive carcinogen. Was also used to bring on puberty in girls to stop the problem of “excessive height”.
September 11th, 2009 at 3:01 pm
Estrogens were discovered in the 1920s. By the time of Turing’s death they were relatively well researched (for that time period). It is completely plausible that they were used in “chemical castration” like procedures.
Here’s a quote from a review paper:
“The target site-specific actions of estrogen on the reproductive system had been well known since the work of Allen and Doisy (1923), who identified assayed ovarian “estrus-stimulating” hormones”
– “Basic guide to the mechanisms of antiestrogen action” by J I MacGregor and V C Jordan (Pharmacol Rev. 1998 Jun;50(2):151-96)
September 11th, 2009 at 3:06 pm
Diethylstilbestrol huh which is an orally administered synthetic oestrogen which was deemed to have potential back then to relieve the symptoms of menopause in middle aged women.
There was no reason then or now to believe it would have any effect on homosexuality and no literature to suggest it be tried for this purpose let alone any record that it was, court ordered or not as the case maybe.
September 11th, 2009 at 3:12 pm
Here’s another one:
American eugenics: race, queer anatomy, and the science of nationalism
By Nancy Ordover
http://books.google.co.nz/books?id=5qHGELC_h-4C&lpg=PA111&ots=WhfPhvER9x&dq=chemical%20castration%201950&pg=PA111#v=onepage&q=&f=false
You’ll have to read it, but basically it talks about hormonal treatments for homosexuality in the late 1930s and early 1940s – chemical castration – under the belief that it was a primarily hormonal problem. Other treatments include pregnant mare serum, eminin, estriol and Stilbestrol…
…which is the brand name for diethylstilbestrol.
September 11th, 2009 at 3:14 pm
I hypothesise that the lack of coherent argument from ‘andrei’ indicates he’s not a real person, just a script that’s somehow evaded DPFs spam filter.
September 11th, 2009 at 3:22 pm
sheesh..!..andrei..!
(excuse the ‘homosexual’ inference/reference..)
but you’ve really had yr arse handed to you on a plate..
..eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
September 11th, 2009 at 3:25 pm
but the problem is with these fuckwits..
that you argue them to a standstill..
they have no ‘answers’..
yet..after a short period of waiting..
they will pop up again..
spouting the same faux-science/biblical bullshit..
to support their irrational prejudices..
fools..!
phil(whoar.co.nz)
September 11th, 2009 at 3:25 pm
andrei,
You’re making large assumptions. I don’t know of any primary sources – haven’t looked. I guess there isn’t any related to Turing. It just seems plausible enough that they could have administered it to reduce his libido. It’s hard to get into the mind those behind this at the time. There surely must be some primary sources out there on the breasts he supposedly developed and other issues related to the treatment?
It is certainly possible. Why are you so doubtful beyond the facts? Unless you’re an endocrinologist who has studied mid 20th century therapies and have something decent to say, you should quietly apologise maybe?
September 11th, 2009 at 3:31 pm
“..Why are you so doubtful?.”
that’s ‘cos the original post/comments..
have been praising a homosexual..
nothing more..
nothing less..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
September 11th, 2009 at 3:35 pm
Alan – apparently Queen Victoria could not see how women could be gay and questioned broadly drafted homosexuality legislation that covered women. The reference to women was deleted.
September 11th, 2009 at 3:37 pm
Why are you so doubtful beyond the facts?
Because the only source for all of this comes from a noted Homosexual activist with no supporting documentation and which furthermore is further contradicted by the availability of suitable “hormones” in 1952 to be used for this purpose.
In science, history and in courts of law you have to make your case with evidence.
Without it you are dealing with conspiracy theory.
I am making no assumptions what-so-ever, I am asking for supporting evidence for this tale beyond hysterical claims made more than 50 years after the events.
September 11th, 2009 at 3:43 pm
There was no reason then or now to believe it would have any effect on homosexuality and no literature to suggest it be tried for this purpose let alone any record that it was, court ordered or not as the case maybe.
Nobody ever said it was a sensible therapy – based on everything else they’ve tried you could take it for granted that it wouldn’t be. As to ‘any record that it was’, I’m again forced to wonder where you’re looking.
If you actually care and won’t take the word of anyone who cares enough to write about it, read the book and then check his sources. If he’s wrong, you’ll have claimed a prime scalp, because as far as I can tell you’re the only person in the world who thinks this.
September 11th, 2009 at 3:44 pm
And suddenly Andrei shows just how conspriacy theory focused he is.
And Fletch as for gay people being called to chasity, I say that you are being called not to breed, with your cognitive ability so far lost.
Why would ‘your god’ an all knowing, powerful, and reasoned being have a massive issue if someone would be attacted to and consentually entered into relations with a person of the same sex. I refuse to think he would.
You also forget your precious bible was still written by humans, ones who are shown in other areas to introduce their own bias.
People who insist on reading the bible literally are in my personal opinion as retarded as those firebrand preachers of Islam, if not more considering they actually have more access to logical thought.
September 11th, 2009 at 3:45 pm
Sorry andrei.
Here’s the pages full of references at the back of the book, where they usually appear.
http://books.google.co.nz/books?id=5qHGELC_h-4C&lpg=PP1&ots=WhfPhwwSar&dq=Nancy%20Ordover&pg=PA246#v=onepage&q=&f=false
Most of the items relating to the evidence you ask for are primary sources, dated in the 1940s and 1950s. I’m sure you can find those items yourself.
September 11th, 2009 at 3:47 pm
wow..!
andrei didn’t even wait a while..!
here he is back again..already..!
just repeating the same shit..!
so andrei..
we can presume that you feel this hodge person would be incapable of writing a ‘good’ biography of turning..
because you think this person hodge might be/is gay..?
have i got you right there..?
(are you listening to yourself..?..at all..)
um..!..how do you explain all the ‘good’ writers we have/had..
who are/were gay..?
some of whom you may have..without hnowing..even ‘enjoyed’..?
(but somehow…i don’t think you are that ‘widely-read’..eh..?)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
September 11th, 2009 at 3:49 pm
“I am making no assumptions what-so-ever, I am asking for supporting evidence for this tale beyond hysterical claims made more than 50 years after the events.”
Ignoring the whole chemical castration, he was still convicted of a crime, and shamed, which partically in more traditional society, was a massive deal. If this isnt seen as something that was a tragedy and something that those involved for should be ashamed off then we have nothign in common what so ever.
September 11th, 2009 at 3:51 pm
andrei..plate..arse..again..
eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
September 11th, 2009 at 3:59 pm
Just like Andrei’s comments opposing the repeal of provocation, his comments here need to be put in context, plain and simple, he just hates fags. He doesn’t actually care about all the stuff he is carrying on about, existence of chemical castration ect, andrei just hates fags.
“Brian Smaller
RRM – I was stating fact. Gays get hung in Iran. When Sharia law is established in European countries they will be there too.”
Which always leaves me kind of surprised as to why you fundamentalist christans have such a problem with fundamentalist muslims, can’t you all just get along (bashing gays, repressing women, hating jews ect)
September 11th, 2009 at 4:09 pm
Hmmm.
I guess there is more outrage because he was a Homosexual rather than a victim of a cruel and unjust state both then and now, rather Ironic considering his former profession but i guess he could see the Irony hence the way he chose to leave.
September 11th, 2009 at 4:18 pm
Phil, strangely that is the way I describe you.
I could provide answers to all your little out-of-context bibilical quotes (which you obviously have standing by for topics such as these) but I doubt it would change your mind any.
September 11th, 2009 at 4:26 pm
I think Danyl’s nailed it, andrei is really Mark V Shaney. Shaney used to make more sense though, so they must have improved the algorithm.
September 11th, 2009 at 4:26 pm
Well, that is the thing right there. If homosexuality is an “orientation” and not a sexual preference, they we shouldn’t discriminate against pedophiles, or necrophiliacs or anybody else who wants to perform any sort of perverse act.
Is that your argument? Any act is fair game? Let’s just let pedophiles make love to kids because that is their “orientation”? That is the way they are made, so why should we try and stop them, ey?
[DPF: You don't really get this concept of consenting adults. Kids and corpses can not consent]
September 11th, 2009 at 4:30 pm
“..I could provide answers to all your little out-of-context bibilical quotes..”
ok..
start with pauls’ one on women..
..and the ‘dashing infants onto rocks’..
mm’kay..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
September 11th, 2009 at 4:34 pm
how are you on masturbation there fletch..?
(good old-fashioned ’spilling yr seed on the ground’..eh..?..)
is wanking the ‘devils’ work’..?
d’ya do it..?
then ‘loath’ yrself..?
heh..!
phil(whoar.co.nz)
[DPF: Starting to get unnecessarily provocative. There are better ways to rebut]
September 11th, 2009 at 4:38 pm
I visited Bletchley Park a few years ago and this story ties-in with what I was told.
They said he had hormone treatment for his homosexuality but they didn’t talk about chemical castration. That sounds like Gordon Brown’s speech writer is getting confused.
Turing was very eccentric and unworldly. When the police questioned him about his relationship he freely admitted to his homosexuality, which was clearly not the thing to do. No one involved knew what he had done during the war or could intervene for him as it was all top secret stuff.
Very few of the people working at Bletchly park knew the full entirety of what they were doing. It was all need-to-know. The ladies who ran the Bombe machines didn’t know why they were doing it.
I would recommend a trip there. It’s a bit ramshackle and there isn’t much of it left but the volunteers are excellent. A very elderly gentleman spent an hour explaining to us how the Bombe machine worked and I understood it for about 5 seconds. And I was well impressed. Then I lost it.
Very clever people.
cheers
Malcolm
September 11th, 2009 at 4:38 pm
Here is somethnig I found about pigs –
Well, you did ask. A question of ‘you are what you eat’.
That said, I do like bacon but a lot of religions won’t eat is it, (Jews, Muslims, etc) and they’re probably healthier for it.
September 11th, 2009 at 4:44 pm
OK, but I’m not talking about consent, or even the act – we’re talking about orientation, even if they don’t do anything about the way that they feel. Can someone be a pedophile or ‘child-lover’ by orientation even if they don’t act on it?
September 11th, 2009 at 4:48 pm
Fletch, you avoided quoting my very next sentence which read:
“I don’t have much respect for any religious beliefs that set out to persecute or ostracise any minority which is doing no harm to anyone else.”
That would seem to exclude pedophiles and necrophiliacs wouldn’t it?
September 11th, 2009 at 4:48 pm
“..There are better ways to rebut..”
that’s very ‘gay’..
(and chrs for the vegan agit-prop there fletch..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
September 11th, 2009 at 4:51 pm
ps, for any who are interested in the report re: homosexual couples vs heterosexual couples and reduced lifespans, you can download the PDF HERE.
September 11th, 2009 at 4:56 pm
Fletch, you missed off the Bible quotes from the passage you quoted.
http://www.aryannations88.com/bible.html
But it’s SO hard to find the source of something when it’s been copied and pasted forever over the web!
http://www.ensignmessage.com/archives/porkfacts.html
September 11th, 2009 at 4:58 pm
The argument for the existence for consent to making something ok has always intrigued me. It suggests that a person is wrong for having sex with animals because they can’t gain the animal’s consent… yet the same person can hunt and kill the same animal without gaining their consent. I would we interested to hear from those who expound the virtue of unfettered sexual gratification justify or condemn bestiality. Either justification looks to be a minefield. Such is amorality.
For the record I believe homosexual sex, or any other deviant sex is wrong in an absolute moral sense, but do not believe it should be illegal on the basis that it’s not possibly to codify morals in the form of law.
September 11th, 2009 at 4:58 pm
Alan, would it? What if your neighbor had an “orientation” in which he loved small children, but he never acted on it, it’s just his orientation. But one day he might?
That’s why I don’t believe there is any such thing as an orientation. There is just sexual preference. Orientation is just an excuse to indulge in the sexual practices you want to indulge in.
I knew we’d end up arguing about all this though, and DPF probably knew he’d re-open this can of worms by posting on this.
September 11th, 2009 at 5:00 pm
fletch..u offered to ‘explain’ those biblical quotes..?
isn’t it yr ‘duty’ to explain..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
September 11th, 2009 at 5:09 pm
“.probably knew he’d re-open this can of worms by posting on this…”
no fletch..it started as an interesting post on turning..
you ..backed by andrei..
turned it into one of yr vile anti/whatever rants..eh..?
forcing people to have to stomp on yr irrational prejudices/’hates’..again/still…
phil(whoar.co.nz)
September 11th, 2009 at 5:12 pm
Fletch, I understand neither your point nor your distinction. Either hetero- or homo- sexuals can be pedophiles. Either way they harm others. If they don’t do anything they don’t harm anyone.
I don’t believe in thought crimes any more than I believe in religion.
September 11th, 2009 at 5:19 pm
“..For the record I believe homosexual sex, or any other deviant sex is wrong in an absolute moral sense,.”
now..about this ‘deviant’ sex..
is there such a thing as ‘deviant’ hetrosexual-couples-sex..?
how does yr deviant/no-deviant-gauge work around the words ‘fellatio’..?..cunnilingus..?..anal sex..?…consensual-spanking..?..etc..etc..?
are any/all ‘deviant’…?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
September 11th, 2009 at 5:28 pm
“Fletch
OK, but I’m not talking about consent, or even the act – we’re talking about orientation, even if they don’t do anything about the way that they feel. Can someone be a pedophile or ‘child-lover’ by orientation even if they don’t act on it?”
Generally a pedophile is a person who actually molests kids, not just someone who is accused of wanting to. How exactly do you work out who the pedophiles are, if they aren’t acting on it.
Anyway, as usual, discussion of gays, the churchies try to drag, pedophilia, necrophilia and bestiality.
What do you think would be a better description of gays? just like hetrosexuals, but prefer their own gender. Or just like pedofile priests, but with consent. both of those seem better than lumping them in with the dead and animal fuckers.
September 11th, 2009 at 5:32 pm
No racer1. I’m simply interested in understanding how people, who use a different moral compas to me, explain the internal consistency of their thinking. I’m sorry if that’s too vexing for you.
September 11th, 2009 at 5:40 pm
The moral compass you aught to be looking for is the one that points to consentual or non consentual, outside of that, its none of your fucking business.
September 11th, 2009 at 5:44 pm
Or shall I leave you with this. There is either more brown haired or blonde haired women out there (I don’t know which), how do those who choose to have sex with which ever group isn’t a majority, and why does society tolerate such deviance.
September 11th, 2009 at 5:49 pm
racer1 – Feel free to address the genuine question I raised in my 4:58 post. I’m interested in your views.
September 11th, 2009 at 5:52 pm
Yes, eating meat is immoral. Next.
September 11th, 2009 at 6:02 pm
Ok, so I’ll mark you down as a lightweight. Oh well. Next indeed.
September 11th, 2009 at 6:04 pm
There is also a side bit about killing stuff, in that with out taunting, agitation and threatening someone, it is kind of out of the blue and since there is no heaven or afterlife, and so long as it is quick and painless, you don’t really know it has happened to you.
Making it illegal to kill people is mainly to get rid of the fear of death, and for the benefit of those around you, who would be left without a family member or friend. If your willing to say animals have that little consciousness that they have no idea whats coming, and that they are not social animals, you could probably argue that death is a less harmful thing to inflict on a sheep than rogering it, which is most certainly will be aware of.
September 11th, 2009 at 6:21 pm
racer1 – that’s better. so i’ll change my assessment of you, and upgrade you to one who thinks bestiality isn’t ok because you believe sheep prefer death to sex. You must be happy not to be a sheep.
September 11th, 2009 at 6:30 pm
I still fail to see how homosexuality is more like bestiality than hetrosexuality.
September 11th, 2009 at 6:40 pm
Fletch, what makes sex between consenting adults whose sexual orientation coincides with it is the consent, not the orientation. No one is saying, “People want to do it, therefore it is okay.” Rather, they are saying, “People capable of consent are consenting to it, therefore it is okay.”
The only reason anyone brings up the fact that some people have homosexual orientation is in response to others saying that it is “unnatural”. Either way, it’s besides the point in a liberty-valuing society, which is: consent.
September 11th, 2009 at 6:50 pm
racer1 – So we’re back to a moral compass. Mine is Christian, and it calls for sex to be saved for a husband and wife, people who have dedicated themselves to each other for life. Others don’t subscribe to that. Fair enough. My question was for them to explain, because I can’t do that convincingly even pretending to hold the world view, why homosexual sex is fine but bestiality etc is wrong. If it’s wrong.. on what basis?
September 11th, 2009 at 8:09 pm
Fletch:The God of the Bible has definite ideas on the rightness and wrongness of homosexuality.
Debatable. Jesus states that homosexuailty is innate (Matthew 19). The only anti-gay stuff in the NT is in Paul who never met Jesus, and whose authority is an invention of the church.
September 11th, 2009 at 9:08 pm
Ryan, if two people want to do whatever to each other, then let them go ahead – they have free will. It’s up to them and their relationship with God – if they believe in Him or in sin or not. It’s when they ask, nay DEMAND, that society considers their acts normal and natural, and demand that sex education in schools tells children that it is normal and a valid option that rubs me the wrong way (if you’ll excuse the pun).
Even though I will not discriminate against such persons, I believe their acts to be dangerous and dysfunctional.
As an example: what if a guy decides he’s going to drive his car backwards from now on everywhere. The car was not made for driving backwards everywhere, although it is probably capable of it, but not for very long. The car won’t last as long and will probably burn out twice as fast from being driven that way.
If he wants to do that out in his own little paddock beside his house, fine: no one is stopping him or whoever else wants to ride with him, but if he’s going to get on a public highway and drive that way, he’s going to endanger not only himself but all those around him.
September 11th, 2009 at 9:17 pm
This has become topical due to a petition posed on the 10 Downing Street website calling for justice for Turing. This led to an official response from Gordon Brown who said:
So is he going to respond to the most signed petition, requesting his resignation?
September 11th, 2009 at 9:19 pm
chiz, I’m sorry but that is bollocks. I just read Matthew 19 and it says nothing about being gay.
Even gays acknowledge that the Bible condemns homosexual relations as a sin. As I have posted before, Ian McKellan (Gandalf) who is openly gay, rips the offending pages from Bibles when he stays in hotels. At least he doesn’t try to deny they are there, or to twist scripture to agree with him. Probably from Lev 18:22-23 “You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.” Lev 20:13 “If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death.”
The destruction of Sodom and Gommorah is another text (where we get the word ‘Sodomy’ from).
You can disagree with what the Bible says, and I don’t mind that, but don’t try and twist it to say something it doesn’t.
September 11th, 2009 at 9:19 pm
so fletch..you don’t want ‘those people’ car-ing each other..in public..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
September 11th, 2009 at 9:28 pm
“..you can disagree with what the Bible says, and I don’t mind that, but don’t try and twist it to say something it doesn’t…”
now that..is really funny..
wars have started over less..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
September 11th, 2009 at 9:33 pm
So anyway Phool, did you ever tell us how much we pay you to do nothing 24/7?
September 12th, 2009 at 6:28 am
Forget all this shit guys, we all have differing views.
Me ,I dont like Homosexuality, I just dont,I never have,never will.If someones into that thats their business,nothing to do with me.
I dont smoke,never have ,never will, thats not to say people shouldnt smoke, again their decision, not mine.
I dont like Labour , again other people do but thats because we are all different.
Live your life and as long it doesnt interfere with me to much, hell I dont care.
Have a nice day.
September 12th, 2009 at 7:52 am
Turing, and a few others, helped to conclude WW2 and saved hundreds of thousands of lives.
And here you are denying the man some dignity in death by moaning that he was gay.
Look at the moat in your own eye.
September 12th, 2009 at 3:52 pm
Fletch:I just read Matthew 19 and it says nothing about being gay
Some people are made eunuchs and some people are BORN eunuchs. read it again.
Btw the destruction of S & G had nothing to do with homosexuality but was to do with thei attitude to strangers.
I’m curious to know why you selectively quote from the OT. It also bans or forbids many other things which modern christians have no problem with.
September 12th, 2009 at 5:36 pm
chiz 3:52 pm,
Do you understand biology Chiz?
When you take your pet cat to the vet to be neutered he (male) becomes a ‘eunuch’ (not a homosexual).
This was the same reason that in ancient cultures those that looked after the king’s harem were (or were made) eunuchs (and therefore had no sexual desire).
Wrong. It was one of the reasons.
Homosexuality in Sodom was one of the measures that indicated the degree of wickedness of the populace.
Although God is against all sin, when He describes a particular sin as being an ‘abomination’ it is an indication of just how abhorrent that sin is. Homosexuality is described in such terms in the bible – an abomination; the most serious of sins.
September 12th, 2009 at 5:49 pm
Zzzzzzzzz Bigotry Press Inc.
September 12th, 2009 at 6:27 pm
how come so many rightwingers are gay-bashers..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
September 12th, 2009 at 11:31 pm
Sorry, a bit late on this thread, but here’s some comments:
1. I am not anti-gay. As a libertarian, I am 100% pro gay rights. Furthermore, as a mathematician, Turing is a hero of mine. Bear that in mind.
2. This story is clearly bollocks. I will give my reasons for saying this.
No court gives a “choice” between imprisonment and another punishment. Sorry, but alternative punishments are an extremely recent development. Back then it was prison or hanging, and that was it. No court would ever order treatment of homosexuality with chemicals. The punishment was imprisonment. If you have access to LexusNexus or Brookers or whatever you use, you can look up tons of KB cases where offenders were convicted for offences relating to homosexuality. Prison, or in extreme cases hanging. No. Other. Punishment. Sorry, but it is just totally an utterly impossible that he would have been ordered to undergo such therapy.
September 13th, 2009 at 12:00 am
“how come so many rightwingers are gay-bashers..?”
How come so many leftwingers are gay cheerleaders…?
As-in, it’s an enervating lifestyle. Sure, accept it, by not making it a criminal offence, but why promote it? What’s the agenda, phil?
Eh?
September 13th, 2009 at 3:17 pm
Getstaffed – much respect. Logical and seasoned with grace.
I hold similar views. In a Biblical worldview sex is designed for a man and a woman, within the confines of marriage. Since I trust the Bible, that is the view I hold. I understand others might not hold that view. I do not believe homosexual acts should be outlawed. But I do believe they should not be actively promoted in our schools, universities, press etc as something “normal” and on par with “one-man-plus-one-woman-in-marriage”. No matter how hard they bleat, it never is and never will be.
RE: Phil. Why doesn’t someone just out him and get WINZ onto him? I know, not the most loving thing to do, but he’s such a drag on this blog, and he’s obviously got plenty of energy, so make the bugger work for his pay.
Rufus
September 14th, 2009 at 3:43 pm
Kris k:Do you understand biology Chiz?
Yes. Can you read? Lok up the passage and then note the capitalisation in my post. Jesus states that some people are made eunuchs and the goes on to state that some people are BORN eunuchs. He was not talking about congenital anorchidism. We know from other ancient sources – roman law and the talmud – that some people who were born-eunuchs were capable of procreating even if they had no desire to do so. Jesus is either talking about asexual or homosexuals.
kris k:Wrong. It was one of the reasons. Homosexuality in Sodom was one of the measures that indicated the degree of wickedness of the populace. Although God is against all sin, when He describes a particular sin as being an ‘abomination’ it is an indication of just how abhorrent that sin is. Homosexuality is described in such terms in the bible – an abomination; the most serious of sins.
Sodom & Gomorah were wealthy and refused to share their prosperity with strangers, who were sometimes raped – male and female alike. God destroyed S & G because of their unwelcoming attitude. Its not clear to me how you go from God punishing them for their willingness to rape male starngers rather than be hospitable to them, to somehow concluding that this is proof that God dislikes homosexuality.
September 14th, 2009 at 5:15 pm
chiz [September 14th, 2009 at 3:43 pm],
Bible study time:
Eunuchs:
Mat 19:12 For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother’s womb: [ie they ain't got no nuts] and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: [ie some bloke chopped off their nuts] and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake [they chose not to marry and remained celebate]. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.
The wickedness of the Sodomites of Sodom:
Gen 19:4 But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter:
Gen 19:5 And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.
Gen 19:6 And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him,
Gen 19:7 And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly.
Gen 19:8 Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof.
Gen 19:9 And they said, Stand back. And they said again, This one fellow came in to sojourn, and he will needs be a judge: now will we deal worse with thee, than with them. And they pressed sore upon the man, even Lot, and came near to break the door.
To ‘know’ someone in the biblical sense is the same as lying with them. That is, carnal ‘knowledge’ or sex.
Lev 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
These degenerate Sodomites of Sodom spurned Lots offer of his two virgin daughters in preference for the two ‘men’ (actually angels).
I think I’ll stick to what the Bible says.
But thanks for your ‘authoritative’ opinion.
September 14th, 2009 at 5:20 pm
Lev 19:19 “‘Keep my decrees.
” ‘Do not mate different kinds of animals.
” ‘Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed.
” ‘Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material.”
Lev 19:27 “Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard.”
Lev 19:33-44 “When an alien lives with you in your land, do not mistreat him. The alien living with you must be treated as one of your native-born. Love him as yourself, for you were aliens in Egypt. I am the LORD your God.”
September 14th, 2009 at 5:33 pm
toad (1573) Vote: 18 28 Says:
September 11th, 2009 at 12:15 pm
Well said, DPF.
However, we still have one disgraceful law on our statute books here in New Zealand in that regard – the Adoption Act which prevents gay and lesbian couples from adopting a child as a couple.
Sounds good to me, no kid would want to be raised by poofs.
September 14th, 2009 at 5:51 pm
Ryan,
And your point is?
Remember, some instructions were specifically to the Jews, while others are in fact advice/commands for all men for all time. Many Old Testament ‘laws’ were restated in the New Testament; while some were not. For instance, I don’t have to sacrifice an animal for my sins today whereas the OT Jews did.
[PS I responded to your comment on 'Liquid on Planes' on our marathon debate effort of last week - if you haven't already seen it.]
September 14th, 2009 at 7:39 pm
Kris,
Doesn’t that seem a little pick-and-mixey? Those instructions – your quote on homosexuality and mine on shaving the hair on the sides of your head – are in the very same book. How do you choose which count?
(Checking the other thread now, apologies for not seeing it.)
September 14th, 2009 at 7:56 pm
Ryan,
The shaving on the side of the head was a specific instruction for the Jews. Hence the reason many Orthodox Jews practice this even today. Also, it is not restated in the NT for Christians. Similar to my animal sacrifice mentioned earlier.
Homosexulity is restated in the NT:
Rom 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
Rom 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.
Rom 1:28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
Rom 1:29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
September 14th, 2009 at 8:00 pm
kris k, do you have some sort of reading comprehension problem. Stop imposing your interpretation of the bible onto the bible. Read my comment again. We know from both relgious and secular source from the same time that the term eunuch ahd a very broad meaning and included people who were capapable of having children, i.e. THEY HAD TESTICLES, but merely had no desire to do so and were born that way. Now what is your evidence that Jesus was referring to congenital anorchidism only?
Ezekial 16:49-50:” ‘Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen”
There is more to the story than you quote. Here’s Josephus:
By the way, according to Leviticus, God also hates people with flat-noses!
September 14th, 2009 at 8:10 pm
Wuh-oh.
September 14th, 2009 at 8:38 pm
Ryan 8:10 pm,
Yeah, I thought you’d like that one!
Debate; not to be confused with ’senseless’ debate, which is the Kris translation (by the Holy Spirit of course) of the actual meaning.
Otherwise I’d have a whole lot of hail Mary’s to repeat. Lucky I’m not Catholic too.
September 14th, 2009 at 8:46 pm
chiz 8:00 pm,
I like my Bible’s version of Ezekiel 16:50 better:
Eze 16:50 And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good.
Now remember that verse I quoted earlier:
Lev 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
September 15th, 2009 at 3:32 pm
Let me guess. You like your bible’s version better, not because you have an objective reason for thinking it is a more accurate translation, but because it is closer to your way of thinking. You choose your bible version based on your likes and dislikes and then claim to take your beliefs from the bible. Do you see any circularity here?
You still haven’t explained why you chose to pay attention Lev 20:13 but not to other parts of Leviticus. I’m guessing its the same circularity as above.