Originally Posted By Mr X Here's something I just stumbled across that's quite interesting. 2012 has been designated "Alan Turing Year": commemorating the mathematician, computer pioneer, and code-breaker on the centennial of Turing's birth. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012</a>
Originally Posted By Inspector 57 And regarding that original point, I say... Is it any wonder that modern-time gay people sometimes come across as strident in their effort to secure equal rights? In 1952, England -- a civilized Western country -- officially punished a guy for being gay by CASTRATING him. In CURRENT TIMES, in many States of the USA, having consentual sex with another consenting adult of the same gender is a felony. Having gay sex can get one on the nation's "sex offender" list, which is gauranteed to ruin one's life forever. In 1998, Matthew Shepard was tortured and killed for being gay. Our president campaigned for the gay vote, but now backtracks as if "gay" is something to be ashamed of. Small wonder then, that gay people would continue to insist that they're not really treated equally in our society, huh? I feel terrible to learn what this British genious was subjected to. In my case, it is literally unthinkable. I just can't wrap my mind around how horrible this must have been for him.
Originally Posted By Inspector 57 And as regards the "sports" controversy this thread had devolved into... Who the f*** cares what sex s/he is?! This case only goes to show how ridiculous the whole sports/competition craze is. Why should the possibility of this person's undeveleoped testicles matter?! Why should THIS case raise so many indignant questions?! Woman vs. Man. Totally chem-free vs. Steroid-enhanced. Poor and self-taught vs. Rich and able to afford the world's best coach. Working on one's own vs. Being raised in a government sports camp. As if any of our modern American heros are "pure." Riiiiggghhhht. I am so tired of hearing about how personally wonderful our gold-medalists are. Face it. They shot it up, they paid for it, they had the luxury of living a life of preparation for competition in a non-meaningful event. This whole "sports" thing is so artificial from the get-go that it seems ridiculous to me to single this person out for his/her sex organs.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 < In CURRENT TIMES, in many States of the USA, having consentual sex with another consenting adult of the same gender is a felony. > Actually, Inspector, I believe the good news is that Lawrence v Texas invalidated those laws. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...v._Texas</a> "Lawrence explicitly overruled Bowers, holding that it had viewed the liberty interest too narrowly. The majority held that intimate consensual sexual conduct was part of the liberty protected by substantive due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. Lawrence has the effect of invalidating similar laws throughout the United States that purport to criminalize sodomy between consenting same-sex adults acting in private. It also invalidated the application of sodomy laws to heterosexual sex." (Yeah, it's wikipedia, but I think they got this one right.) Of course, it took till 2003, and you need only read Scalia's dissent to realize what we're up against sometimes, but at least two consenting adults in private are no longer criminals in the eyes of the law.
Originally Posted By Inspector 57 <<Actually, Inspector, I believe the good news is that Lawrence v Texas invalidated those laws.>> Thanks, Dabob. I had heard that, too, but then recently read that the laws are still on the books. I'm going to try to find a definitive answer to the question.
Originally Posted By Mr X They might be "on the books" on one way or another in case the Supreme Court changes it's mind, but they are unusable at present (thankfully). It's probably something similar to the "trigger laws" that are in effect in many states regarding abortion. If the Supreme Court reverses Roe-v-Wade, these laws would immediately go into effect. That, by the way, is a good motivation for anti-homosexual folks to keep gay marriage illegal, since if it WERE illegal it would be that much harder for them to re-criminalize it if/when the Supreme Court went conservative enough to reverse themselves. Food for thought.
Originally Posted By Mr X <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trigger_law" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trigger_law</a>
Originally Posted By Mr X ***since if it WERE illegal it would be that much harder*** Of course, what I meant was if it WERE "legal".
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <Thanks, Dabob. I had heard that, too, but then recently read that the laws are still on the books.> They might be, but they would be unenforceable. I remember Alabama still officially banned interracial marriage in their constitution (!) as late as 2000 I think; yet this could not be enforced due to SCOTUS' decision. It took decades for some states to remove the ban officially, and it's possible some even still exist. Certainly it's possible some anti-sodomy laws remain on the books, but can't now be enforced.
