And the IT angle of this story is....
....what exactly?
Genghis Khan didn't much like gays
Chinese researchers have claimed that Genghis Khan's code of laws "probably" contains the earliest ban on male homosexuality, AP reports. Experts at the Research Institute of Ancient Mongolian Laws and Sociology in Inner Mongolia reassembled Khan's code - lost 600 years ago - from "historical texts, including Marco Polo's …
-
Thursday 30th August 2007 11:56 GMT Sandra Greer
Legal Precedent
See, our President Bush DOES respect precedent. He is slightly to the right of Genghis Khan; he would APPROVE of digging holes in grassland and setting fires, depending on whose property might be involved.
But seriously.. NAAH, can't be serious about contemporary politics. Second time as farce?
-
Thursday 30th August 2007 11:56 GMT Pascal Monett
Doesn't actually say that
It says that he was encouraging population growth - something that being homosexual is obviously not compatible with.
So, what is really important in this article is the fact that homosexuals everywhere can trace their movement right back to Genghis Khan.
Isn't that worth thinking about a moment ?
-
This post has been deleted by its author
-
Thursday 30th August 2007 12:08 GMT Raheim Sherbedgia
Moral Outrage
How does anyone know that old GK didn't like gays on moral principal? They are just guessing on the "increase the population" thing so they minimize political damage over their "findings".
Besides, we all know the increase population line is bunk. GK and crew could easily have adopted Chinese babies and raised them in domestic partnership yurt(holds) that everyone knows are just as nurturing as a regular yurt.
-
Thursday 30th August 2007 12:55 GMT Graham Bartlett
IT angle?
Not only is the IT angle bugger all, but the article is about bugger all, or all buggering anyway.
(Offtopic - how many other people find it irritating that the letters F and G are adjacent on a QWERTY keyboard, causing occasional submissions of code for review with a "screen_bugger" instead of "screen_buffer"? Although thinking about it, maybe that's where the idea for Vista came from - typo in requirements document when some specified that all work shall be buffered.)
-
-
Thursday 30th August 2007 18:37 GMT Sampler
Sodomy is not gay
Just because someone commits an act of sodomy doesn't make them gay, you can have sodomy performed between members of the opposite sex (though it does tend to be all giving and no receiving) - if you don't believe me there's quite a few google searches you can perform on the subject, just not in the office =D
-
Thursday 30th August 2007 20:03 GMT Graham Marsden
@Sampler
> you can have sodomy performed between members of the opposite sex (though it does tend to be all giving and no receiving)
Err, never heard of a strap-on? They're not just for lesbians, you know, I sell them mainly to straight couples.
One other point, up until the passing of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, it was actually a criminal offence for a man and a woman to engage in anal sex, even though it had been legal for two men for quite a few years already!
-
-
Friday 31st August 2007 09:42 GMT Dax Farrer
Hackney lot of old bollocks
You can see that the wisdom on crowds is not working, how much mis-information has just been bandied around in the posts above.
1. GK was very successful. So successful he managed to completely wipe a couple of nations from the earth. So, even better than the Nazis in genocide.
The Mongols were also successful after GK, Kublai Khan was the ruler of even more than GK and its actually him that runs into the Russians and scares the shit out of them. Kublai was more Chinese than GK, you have this absorbtion thing going on, there were a lot fewer Mongols than Chinese, and the Chinese were much more advanced. Though not in things like stirrups, but in things like useless fireworks (lol) and soap and water.
The romans didn't burn homosexuals at the stake, but they were not so keen on it as the Greeks. They were also worried that the patrician families were fucking the slaves all day and not getting down to some serious procreation.
@Graham Marsdan - thanks mate - some sanity out there
As for the IT angle ... sigh... there is more to life than a fucking computer. There's fucking for a start ! See how important its been through the ages. If we want geeks in the future, they should start shagging like rabbits now, otherwise rather than the geeks inheriting the earth they will die out and the inevitable rise of our robot masters assured. There will be no one left to stop them.
-
Friday 31st August 2007 18:25 GMT Peter Mellor
English anti-buggery laws
@Sampler wrote:
"One other point, up until the passing of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, it was actually a criminal offence for a man and a woman to engage in anal sex, even though it had been legal for two men for quite a few years already!"
I think that the relevant English statute (against men sodomising women) was enacted during the reign of Henry VIII. The law which proscribed "male indecency" only stems from the mid to late 19th Century, and came about as an amendment to an otherwise unrelated bill by a single MP during a poorly attended late-night sitting of Parliament. At the time of the trial of Oscar Wilde, the statute had only been law for a couple of years, and Wilde was one of the first (if not the first) to be convicted under it.
(I haven't checked my facts in detail and am writing from memory, so any corrections are appreciated.)
-
Sunday 2nd September 2007 18:27 GMT Ishkandar
@Matt
Genghis Khan, or Temujin (to give his true name), NEVER out-ran his supplies. In fact, he had a great obsession about supply dumps all along his route(s) of march. Furthermore, he could split his army into three or more "sub"-units and march them along different routes and only converge when they were near their objective in order not to over-stress the supply situation.
BTW the word you want is HORDE not "hoard" and that word is a Western corruption of the word "Ordo" which meant a "division" of 10,000 men.
And the only reason the Mongols turned back from conquering Europe was that the Great Khan had died and all the generals were rushing back to Mongolia to chose (or be "chosen") the next Great Khan ( a bit like the Republican convention(s) of recent times).
As for copulation, they had the pick of the women from all their conquered territories so they should have no problems in that sense. Therefore, the prohibition is on the actual desire rather than the force of circumstances (as had happened often in European sailing ships of yore).
Having said that, the Spartans were famed for their martial qualities and they made buggery of young into a fine art !! Or could it be that they would rather charge the enemy and die gloriously like men than to be buggered by their superiors (pun intended) !!
This topic is closed for new posts.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
