Whether it's Alan Turing, slavery, war crimes, or anything else, the best apology to someone who is dead would be to stop doing the same things to those who are living.
The retarded behavior against people who just want to live their life in their chosen way, and which does not in any way affect the lives of others is a real blemish on our society. And I fear we will not be getting rid of this during the rest of my life.
Frankly, I really don't understand what the fuss is all about, so what if some people like other people from the same gender. Just let them be, it is their lives after all.
Just like any binary system, all combinations in the table are valid combinations, those for whom the 'bits' line up in some way or other do not get to the tell the others they can't or should not exist.
Do not let yourself use the "to each his own" argument. Its PROVEN (like 2+2 = 4) that that outlook is plain ol' wrong (you can find it on wiki or something).
What about people who roam around naked? Whats wrong with that? Its their bodies, who are we to discourage them? What about child molesters, they are having CONSENSUAL sex with young teenagers, who are we to stop them its their bodies.
Please pick a better argument.
Now: Treating homosexuals as outcasts is no worse than treating black people as outcasts for the way they are born. These people are not doing anything wrong (some might even argue that they are doing right by our society by helping with overpopulation problems) and they just want to be treated as normal people who happen to do something you don't completely approve of, not as criminals, or outcasts!
In any case people have discriminated against groups for all of recorded history. So we need to stop it as much as possible because from ALL of history we can see what good comes out of discrimination.
Nothing, unless the owner of the place they're roaming objects. There are, in fact, places where the owner(s) do not object, and few people are up in arms about it, especially in Europe.
What about child molesters, they are having CONSENSUAL sex with young teenagers, who are we to stop them its their bodies.
Molesting is not consensual, by definition. You might want to argue about what activities are or are not molestation, but if you make your argument about "child molesters", you've already lost any hope of convincing any of us that only non-molestation was going on. ;)
I'd say that the "to each their own" argument works really well in many situations.
> I'd say that the "to each their own" argument works really well in many situations.
Agreed. The dividing line is generally around an action affecting someone else. If it does, then there is the possibility that we should make it illegal.
Of course, this can become more nuanced. At the risk of getting (slightly) off topic, Deborah Stone's book Policy Paradox (http://www.amazon.com/Policy-Paradox-Political-Decision-Revi...) has an interesting discussion.
The mind, it is boggling.
Some of the known-successful ways to get around said "benchmark" are "this time it's different", "this government is good", "group C deserves it", and "we're not doing B".
How about some supporting evidence?
> It can always be worse, you know.
Yes, it can always be worse, but whether or not a govt has said something is wrong has no predictive power on that issue.
Every post-1900 by-govt mass murder was committed by a "we don't do those things" regime.
Gay people are now mostly treated very well, except for that dumb restriction against nationally recognized same sex marriage. Give it 15 years though and one of the last bastions of state-sanctioned inequality will vanish.