FWIS3

So I was reading an inane Yahoo! article about twists in shows that this author doesn't like. Apparently, on Two and Half Men (yes, that show is till on), they've brought on Charlie's long lost daughter, who is a lesbian, and can get any woman to sleep with her - gay or straight. She's also an alcoholic. IOW, she's exactly like her old man.

Here's what's confusing and upsetting to me. Lots of people commented on this article about how they aren't going to watch the show anymore because now that there's a lesbian on there, it has no moral fiber.

Are you fucking kidding me? It's okay for Charlie and all the men on the show to sleep with as many woman as possible without making a commitment, but if it's a gay person, now it's wrong? What. The. Fuck. is wrong with people?

Grr. Tried to post a reply and the MBTA wifi ate it. Anyway...

I was actually thinking about this issue this morning, after hearing about the guy from Duck Dynasty comparing homosexuality to bestiality.

It also amazes me that people find this so hard to understand. I mean, IMO pretty much any adult can attest to having fallen flat-out, at some point, for someone he or she found less than astounding physically. It happens all the time. You don't fall for a body, you fall for a personality. How is it so hard to imagine falling in love with someone of the same sex, despite weak physical attraction? Never mind with stronger attraction present?

Hmm. Maybe one possible answer is just that people are repressed as all shit.

c.f. all the dislike for Legolas in LOTR. I would bet that 90% of guys who blather about how pansy Orlando Bloom is as Legolas secretly want to cuddle with him.

Gullible Jones wrote:I was actually thinking about this issue this morning, after hearing about the guy from Duck Dynasty comparing homosexuality to bestiality.

W.T.F.
Not much else to say as it's so damned retarded.

GJ wrote:c.f. all the dislike for Legolas in LOTR. I would bet that 90% of guys who blather about how pansy Orlando Bloom is as Legolas secretly want to cuddle with him.

Count me in the 10%
Not that I dislike the character.

Why so many people hate homosexuality:
1) Religious reasons.
2) Their own repressed desires they don't want to address.
3) For the same reasons farmers don't like bulls or rams that are gay. They don't provide them with more cattle or sheep to provide an income with.

For the USA, 1&2 are valid in the South.
3 is valid in the North, think government.
I'm not talking geographically either.

Gullible Jones wrote:Grr. Tried to post a reply and the MBTA wifi ate it. Anyway...

I was actually thinking about this issue this morning, after hearing about the guy from Duck Dynasty comparing homosexuality to bestiality.

It also amazes me that people find this so hard to understand. I mean, IMO pretty much any adult can attest to having fallen flat-out, at some point, for someone he or she found less than astounding physically. It happens all the time. You don't fall for a body, you fall for a personality. How is it so hard to imagine falling in love with someone of the same sex, despite weak physical attraction? Never mind with stronger attraction present?

Hmm. Maybe one possible answer is just that people are repressed as all shit.

c.f. all the dislike for Legolas in LOTR. I would bet that 90% of guys who blather about how pansy Orlando Bloom is as Legolas secretly want to cuddle with him.

Strangely, I always thought Legolas was too damn pretty as a fighter. But, the fact that he mostly does it with the bow partly explains the disturbing lack of scars that should be there.

The Situation According To FZ:
Why so many people hate homosexuality:
1) Religious reasons.
2) Their own repressed desires they don't want to address.
3) For the same reasons farmers don't like bulls or rams that are gay. They don't provide them with more cattle or sheep to provide an income with.

I don't disagree. But as I have stated before, I do believe that I can boil it down to two sentences:
It is not that people are afraid of legitimizing gay marriage. They are afraid that by legitimizing gay marriage, they thereby legitimize
gay sex, and that is what puts their pacemakers into the red zone.

cid you are right but there is more. If gay marriages succeed more than hetero (and I have to say the gay couples I know have been together longer than most hetero couples) ... well what message does that send? LOL?

IMHO It says that the sample is small and that those who actually went through all the hurdles were really really committed to it. As it becomes more common I suspect it will tend to have the same failure rate as hetero marriage.

And FWIW I wish all this nonsense about gay marriage stopped. As I have said several of times, due to cultural issues, I don't like gays very much. But as far as I am concerned they ought to have the right to marry and live their lives as they please anywhere they please (yes, including MY backyard). The fact that I don't like it is irrelevant. Why? because my dislike is irrational, it's based on my cultural upbringing. And since we live in a world that glorifies irrationality, alienating people of reason just because I don't like a particular facet of them is not only irrational but self-defeating. So there

Oh yeah, and as far as I am concerned Orlando Bloom is not exactly a good actor, Collin Farrell is better

Sigma_Orionis wrote:Oh yeah, and as far as I am concerned Orlando Bloom is not exactly a good actor, Collin Farrell is better

Them's fightin' words!

Sigma_Orionis wrote:And FWIW I wish all this nonsense about gay marriage stopped. As I have said several of times, due to cultural issues, I don't like gays very much. But as far as I am concerned they ought to have the right to marry and live their lives as they please anywhere they please (yes, including MY backyard). The fact that I don't like it is irrelevant. Why? because my dislike is irrational, it's based on my cultural upbringing. And since we live in a world that glorifies irrationality, alienating people of reason just because I don't like a particular facet of them is not only irrational but self-defeating. So there

^^^^
Gets my vote for most honest and rationally explained opinion of the year.

But you're wrong about Orlando Bloom and Colin Farrell. WRONG, I SAY!

geonuc wrote:But you're wrong about Orlando Bloom and Colin Farrell. WRONG, I SAY!

SciFi Chick wrote:Them's fightin' words!

Oh yeah? FATWAH I say!, death to infidels!

Gullible Jones wrote:I was actually thinking about this issue this morning, after hearing about the guy from Duck Dynasty comparing homosexuality to bestiality.

What I don't understand about this one is the shock some people are expressing over this guy's statement. From what little I've seen of that program, it's all about watching a bunch of redneck, backwoods, uneducated guys who struck it rich with a duck call and are now living the high life. The people I know who like it seem to mostly enjoy watching these ignorant men act like ignorant men. So now we're surprised when one of them says something ignorant. Really?

Never seen Duck Dynasty and don't think I will, when I flip channels and watch either a glimpse of it or see and advert for it, I figure it's a ZZ Top lookalike convention.

gethen wrote:

Gullible Jones wrote:I was actually thinking about this issue this morning, after hearing about the guy from Duck Dynasty comparing homosexuality to bestiality.

What I don't understand about this one is the shock some people are expressing over this guy's statement. From what little I've seen of that program, it's all about watching a bunch of redneck, backwoods, uneducated guys who struck it rich with a duck call and are now living the high life. The people I know who like it seem to mostly enjoy watching these ignorant men act like ignorant men. So now we're surprised when one of them says something ignorant. Really?

We want them to be ignorant... but god help them if they actually verbalize an opinion that is currently unacceptable or offensive. I kind of think of it as a simple solution actually. If this is the type of person you don't want in your home then don't watch the show. If they say things you don't like and you feel that strongly about it then don't buy their products.

As for his comparing homosexuality to being equal to bestiality why is everyone shocked about this? This has been one of the primary arguments of fundamental Christians to the acceptance of homosexuality since this debate began approx 2000 years ago when Paul published his first letters. Yet, every time someone mentions it in a public article, radio, or TV show people act shocked and surprised that anyone could think that way. Hello? You put a backwoods fundamental christian on TV and you interview him. And you are going to demand that he conforms to your idea of what is socially acceptable? Maybe you don't want reality TV after all.

Here's a good reason for SFC's confusion:

Royal pardon for codebreaker Alan Turing

Computer pioneer and codebreaker Alan Turing has been given a posthumous royal pardon.

It addresses his 1952 conviction for homosexuality for which he was punished by being chemically castrated.

The conviction meant he lost his security clearance and had to stop the code-cracking work that had proved vital to the Allies in World War Two.

Many people have campaigned for years to win a pardon for Turing.

Dr Sue Black, a computer scientist, was one of the key figures in the campaign.

She told the BBC that she hoped all the men convicted under the anti-homosexuality law would now be pardoned.

Some have criticised the action for not going far enough and, 59 years after Turing's death, little more than a token gesture.

"I just think it's ridiculous, frankly," British home computing pioneer Sir Clive Sinclair told the BBC.

"He's been dead these many years so what's the point? It's a silly nonsense.

"He was such a fine, great man, and what was done was appalling of course. It makes no sense to me, because what's done is done."

About the only logical reason I can find for this token gesture is that Gay Marriage became legal in England and Wales last year and the legislation will become valid in 2014.

Turing made far more contribution than "Sir" Clive Sinclair.
With comments like that from the douche he should be reminded of the fact that this man was persecuted, chemically castrated and possibly executed for national security reasons just because he was gay. Sinclair should be reminded that his own "great" work on computers amounted to nothing more than assembling the building blocks that turning developed. Basically Sinclair is nothing short of wanker that over thinks his importance in the world. Job's would be proud to call him one of his own. Asshole.

I am not going to defend Sinclair, but I do think it was a token gesture.

Turing was extremely mistreated by the UK Government and it's particularly galling because of all he did to help insure the victory of the Allies during WWII (not to mention his pioneering work on IT) and it takes 59 years to give him a posthumous pardon.

So yeah, I think it's pathetic that now they go and make an exception JUST FOR HIM. It was a token gesture because the bulk of his work has just been recently disclosed to the public, and the fact that the UK has already legalized Gay marriage. As the article mentions, there have been a lot of calls for this for a great number of years to do so and just now they say "gee, we're sorry".

The only bit I definitely disagree with is the bit about "probably executed for national security reasons", there's plenty of debate of whether he committed suicide or was poisoned by accident, if there was any evidence that he was murdered by the UK Government I am pretty sure it would have come out by now.


Edited for clarity and spelling.

There should be something other than "to pardon", which implies that what was done was wrong but you're being let off the hook because of whatever reason. He doesn't need to be pardoned for being gay. There must be some other legal thing that can be done.

Nothing legal, I'm afraid. I think a direct statement from the Queen stating that anti-gay laws were a gross injustice, a blanket pardon for all convicted, and an official apology to every person persecuted by the government in this way would be a start. I'd also consider reparations to victims and families as well as, perhaps, a Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

SciFi Chick wrote:There should be something other than "to pardon", which implies that what was done was wrong but you're being let off the hook because of whatever reason. He doesn't need to be pardoned for being gay. There must be some other legal thing that can be done.

As I understand it. Legally, he was convicted of the crime of homosexuality and punished for it. So, from a legal perspective all they can do is pardon him for the conviction. I am not sure if there is any way to actually expunge or remove the conviction after the fact.

In the eyes of the law, as I understand the way it works in England, a pardon is as if the conviction never occurred. It is not the same, for example, as an acquittal after years of imprisonment on the basis of new evidence. The conviction is not just quashed; it is entirely expunged. Obliterated. Annihilated.

Sigma_Orionis wrote:The only bit I definitely disagree with is the bit about "probably executed for national security reasons", there's plenty of debate of whether he committed suicide or was poisoned by accident, if there was any evidence that he was murdered by the UK Government I am pretty sure it would have come out by now.

When it comes to that sort of security measure it rarely if ever see's the light of day. All we can do is guess.

As for the token measure, why yes, yes it is. That's all it can be. The guy was convicted, punished and is dead. Short of bringing him back, nothing they do can ever be anything more than that. I wasn't commenting on the token part, rather Sinclair's comment that its ridiculous.

What it means to his relatives however is that they didn't have a family member who committed sex crimes. It also puts out a lot more publicity than someone that was unknown being pardoned. Though they really should pardon all of the people convicted.
For the record, when you apply for security clearance you as well as your family get checked out. Depending on the position depends just how deep they go. Convictions anywhere can and do play a role in rejection.

"I just think it's ridiculous, frankly," British home computing pioneer Sir Clive Sinclair told the BBC.

"He's been dead these many years so what's the point? It's a silly nonsense.

"He was such a fine, great man, and what was done was appalling of course. It makes no sense to me, because what's done is done."


i see sinclair's statement as meaning that the pardon does nothing for turing, a 'fine, great man'. it comes far too late to be anything but a gesture.

FZR1KG wrote:When it comes to that sort of security measure it rarely if ever see's the light of day. All we can do is guess.

After almost 60 years? and no whistle-blowers? I am not so sure the Brits are any better at keeping secrets than the US, which by now has shown that it can't

Sigma_Orionis wrote:

FZR1KG wrote:When it comes to that sort of security measure it rarely if ever see's the light of day. All we can do is guess.

After almost 60 years? and no whistle-blowers? I am not so sure the Brits are any better at keeping secrets than the US, which by now has shown that it can't

The execution game and security classified are two very different things. Only a tiny percentage of people that are executed are actually verified as been executed. Usually when data comes out it comes out with someone giving numbers of dead rather than names.

The files regarding what happened with JFK are still sealed because they may contain something that can impact either people or the security of the nation. Makes you wonder exactly what is so devastating after all those years. Most likely what was really uncovered was destroyed long ago anyway, just the shadow of the information remains.

I'm not sure what to think of this. Turing was a great man, of course, and deserves(ed) to be honored for his achievements and service. Laws against being gay are, of course, abominable.

That said, should he be singled out for a pardon? If they pardon all who were convicted under that vile law, it would be good. As to whether there is a point after all these years, I think there is. Acknowledgement of a wrong is necessary for a society to feel they are doing the right thing and are on the right path. The US, to mention another example, absolutely had to apologize to the Japanese-Americans interred during WWII. That too was legal (but shouldn't have been).