Thursday, October 16, 2008

Why supporting gay rights is the rational thing to do. (Californians, please vote no on Proposition 8)

I recognize that many people find homosexuality offensive, and having grown up in small-town bible-belt America, I too have been at least moderately anti-gay in the distant past. However, anti-gay efforts cause real, calculable harm to society.

The premise is simple. When we create an environment that is hostile to gay people, to a greater or lessor degree, they leave. When they leave, we lose their contributions to our communities. The greater the degree of hostility, the more likely they are to leave to find a place more accepting of them. Now this may be the goal of many, but as a society, this greatly harms us all.

To fully understand the potential harm we cause ourselves with such intolerance, consider the case of Alan Turing. A mathematical genius with a gift for bridging the theoretical and practical worlds, in 1936 Turing imagined a "universal" machine with physical embodiment capable of executing any algorithm sufficiently defined. In other words, he was the father of the modern computer.

While in America in the 1930s,and recognizing the prospect of war with Germany, Turing studied cyphers and cryptography and returned to England to aid his country. He was put to work at England's wartime cryptanalytic headquarters at Bletchley Park, and was instrumental in the development of the Turning-Welchman Bombe, a computing device that made reading German Luftwaffe signals routine.

He then turned his attention towards Germany's naval communications, secured by the "unbreakable" Enigma machine. As a result of Turing's efforts, by mid-1941 the English were regularly decrypting German u-boat communications. Although the Germans added complexity to their machines, temporarily stopping England's interception, this too was defeated, setting the stage for Germany's demise.

In 1952, Turing was arrested, tried, and convicted for the "crime" of homosexuality, identified as "gross indecency" under an 1885 statute. He was given a "choice" between a prison sentence, or estrogen injections to treat his "illness." He opted for the injections, as prison may well have been fatal for him. As a known homosexual, he was ineligible for a security clearance, and fell into a downward spiral, ultimately committing suicide in 1954.

As a direct result of Turing's contributions to the Allied war effort, literally hundreds of thousands of lives were saved, including countless Americans. Imagine the course of history had Turing been outed in 1939 and driven from England. What if the Germans had a gay-friendly society, and welcomed him with open arms? I shudder to think of how WWII could have turned out very differently without Turing on our side.

Before you say "that was then, and this is now, and don't we prosecute gays any more," recognize that our anti-gay bias is still causing grave harm to our national security. Our "don't ask, don't tell" policy in the military forces gay people to either live a lie, or be fired, and has directly resulted in the expulsion of a significant number of language translators fluent in Arabic and Farsi. Imagine, in this "post 9/11" world, and in the midst of the Iraq war, we are still booting some of the same people we desperately need to help us figure out what the hell is going on.

I recognize that many, particularly those with deep-seated religious beliefs, may find it difficult to happily accept gay people. If this is you, please follow Jesus' teachings in the book of John, that "He that is without sin among you, let him cast the first stone," and leave it to god to sort out. You may also want to note that the anti-gay passages of the bible are contained in the book of Leviticus, which has more than a few rather odd pronouncements (consider this, this, or this), and may not be a reliable guide as to how to live your life.

8 comments:

Bill said...

Not anti-gay, just anti gay-marriage. I support the values of an institution that is thousands of years old.

Sebastian said...

Bill, the institution of marriage is actually only a few centuries old, not hthousands of years. And the reason it was instituted in the first place (during the 15th Century (in case you can't read roman numerals)) was for the Spanish catholic monarchs to have a legal way of expropriating all the muslims and jews they were kicking out of spain. Good luck to you, homophobe.

hencethus said...

Slavery is thousands of years old too, Bill. Tradition isn't always right.

Shira I'nusyl said...

There are other, similar measures on the ballot in other states right now. Item #2 on the Florida ballot would constitutionally prohibit not only gay marriage but "that no other legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized." And even though I'm gay, my religious parents refuse to vote no on the measure. So much for actually supporting their children.

A Canuck said...

I support the traditional definition of marriage, which is between a man and his property - a woman of the same race.

If we start allowing white men to marry black women, we'll soon have people marrying their pets!!!

I'm not racist, I just support the values of an institution that is thousands of years old.


SUPPORT TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE! OPPOSE INTERRACIAL MARRIAGE!

Jabberwockey said...

Bill - what exactly are the values of the institution of marriage?

I agree with you that marriage is a very old concept - actually, the concept is much older than christianity - but do you realise that the values of this institution changed a lot over time?

Did you know that gay marriage was a given in 18th century France (affrerements)? That it was also possible in pre-Christian Rome?

I don't want much, Bill. I just want the right to demand to see my partner in hospital when he dies - or to inherit his belongings. That's something every heterosexual spouse or husband gets - but that's something we are being denied. And I want the recognition of our community that my partner and I are not in a "phase", not "misguided", not "f***ing around", but are really partners for life.

Matt said...

Legal opposition of gay marriage is ridiculous. It's a clear violation of church and state.

These things should be two separate entities:

Marriage should be regulated by the churches and SHOULD NOT be legally recognized.

Joint tax status (or what have you) should be regulated by the government and should allow for sharing of resources and any "official" business of the people. It should be recognized between ANY two people.

Or I'll start a movement to abolish ALL marriage due to its abysmal success rates.

Silouan said...

All a government is able to do is recognize and record civil partnerships. Marriage is a spiritual sacrament; governments aren't competent to offer it.

So get government out of the religion business, and record only civil unions. Then if people have belief-systems that include sacramental blessings on couples, let them do whatever their religion does.

In other words, my priest should not have to fill out some damn government's license forms; and it's none of the government's business what ceremonies we offer to couples in our church.