Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

On Geeks and Gays

newstilt.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 232 posts

Re: On Geeks and Gays

#21

Post by alextgordon »

natrius wrote: post #6
RyanMcGreal wrote: post #4

All in all, a great essay. But: >I’m conflicted about whether gay couples should be allowed to adopt. Why on earth shouldn't a gay couple be allowed to adopt?

If the demand for adoption outstrips supply, and if (big if) a man and a woman parent substantially better than two people of the same gender, it might make sense to have a blanket preference for heterosexual couples when choosing parents. There could be something innate in each gender that contributes to a child's upbringing, and depending on the value of those traits, it could be responsible to maximize the number…

On the other hand, having greater variation might provide a net benefit to the population as a whole.

Re: On Geeks and Gays

#22

Post by drivebyacct »

natrius wrote: post #6
RyanMcGreal wrote: post #4

All in all, a great essay. But: >I’m conflicted about whether gay couples should be allowed to adopt. Why on earth shouldn't a gay couple be allowed to adopt?

If the demand for adoption outstrips supply, and if (big if) a man and a woman parent substantially better than two people of the same gender, it might make sense to have a blanket preference for heterosexual couples when choosing parents. There could be something innate in each gender that contributes to a child's upbringing, and depending on the value of those traits, it could be responsible to maximize the number…

Ironically, even as a homosexual, I suspect that your former predicate is actually more unlikely than the latter. Though the latter is pretty damn ridiculous as well, at least by the metric of the literature I'm exposed to so I could be unaware of something supporting that idea.

Re: On Geeks and Gays

#23

Post by puredemo »

tman wrote: post #19
RyanMcGreal wrote: post #4

All in all, a great essay. But: >I’m conflicted about whether gay couples should be allowed to adopt. Why on earth shouldn't a gay couple be allowed to adopt?

While mirror image thinking about gays is fun (they're just heterosexuals with a bit flip), it's not all that realist . Before we get to adoption, lets analyze an easier statement: Gays shouldn't be allowed to become Catholic priests. What? Can it be defended? Well, you've heard about the abuse cases. Two-thirds of the problem, going by published numbers, involve priests who have sex with young boys. These are not ch…

How about just not discriminating?

Re: On Geeks and Gays

#24

Post by puredemo »

wheels wrote: post #17
RyanMcGreal wrote: post #4

All in all, a great essay. But: >I’m conflicted about whether gay couples should be allowed to adopt. Why on earth shouldn't a gay couple be allowed to adopt?

I think the reservations are built on a couple things: • It's not hard to argue that it's good for a child to have a mom and a dad. I'm not going to get into such, but whether or not you agree, let's just accept that it's not a wild notion. • Adoption is one of the few places where there's any chance for society to evaluate the fitness of parents before they can have children. Usually it just happens. • A male-male c…

From what I understand, most studies show that the most important thing is for kids to have two parents -- kids raised in single parent households didn't do as well (but I'm not sure how many associated variables were controlled for.)

The gender of the two parents didn't seem to have much of an impact.

Re: On Geeks and Gays

#25

Post by sophacles »

drivebyacct wrote: post #5

Well I read two lines and stopped: "I’m not, so what was it that drove me to stand up for a gay man?" Is that a serious question? Who the hell wouldn't stand up for a man who was chemically castrated for being a homosexual. I mean, what reasonable non-crazy-fundie person would support that? Wow, I kept reading: "Many of those people who wrongly assumed I was gay would probably be surprised to learn that I campaigned…

Honestly, I'm more impressed with someone campaigning for what is logically right (even tho they have emotional hangups) than I am with someone who follows their emotions for the "right thing" but can't explain why it is right. The latter is just a result of luck.

I have had my own stupid emotional discomforts. None of them were logical, but all of them were easier to deal with when I was open about it. Get off your high horse.

Edit: strike that "get off your high horse" bit, its too reactionary of me -- sorry about that.

Re: On Geeks and Gays

#26

Post by aphyr »

wheels wrote: post #17
RyanMcGreal wrote: post #4

All in all, a great essay. But: >I’m conflicted about whether gay couples should be allowed to adopt. Why on earth shouldn't a gay couple be allowed to adopt?

I think the reservations are built on a couple things: • It's not hard to argue that it's good for a child to have a mom and a dad. I'm not going to get into such, but whether or not you agree, let's just accept that it's not a wild notion. • Adoption is one of the few places where there's any chance for society to evaluate the fitness of parents before they can have children. Usually it just happens. • A male-male c…

It's not hard to argue that it's good for a child to have a mom and a dad.

The APA's official stance (one borne out by my personal experience with gay families) is that there is no difference in the well-being of children raised by two same-sex parents or two opposite-sex parents.

"...the results of existing research comparing lesbian and gay parents to heterosexual parents and children of lesbian and gay parents to children of heterosexual parents are quite clear: Common stereotypes are not supported by the data."

http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/parenting.aspx

Re: On Geeks and Gays

#27

Post by puredemo »

drivebyacct wrote: post #5

Well I read two lines and stopped: "I’m not, so what was it that drove me to stand up for a gay man?" Is that a serious question? Who the hell wouldn't stand up for a man who was chemically castrated for being a homosexual. I mean, what reasonable non-crazy-fundie person would support that? Wow, I kept reading: "Many of those people who wrongly assumed I was gay would probably be surprised to learn that I campaigned…

I felt exactly the same way.

It seems as if this author had been living in Turing's time period his post would have read:

"I don't have clear thoughts about whether chemical castration or forced celibacy is better; I'm conflicted about whether gay couples should be allowed to be free."

Re: On Geeks and Gays

#28

Post by sliverstorm »

caryme wrote: post #13
natrius wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the demand for adoption outstrips supply, and if (big if) a man and a woman parent substantially better than two people of the same gender, it might make sense to have a blanket preference for heterosexual couples when choosing parents. There could be something innate in each gender that contributes to a child's upbringing, and depending on the value of those traits, it could be responsible to maximize the number…

I realize this is an explanation for the argument against same-sex couple adoption, but in the same vein I'd like to point out that where this argument falls apart is in the legality of single parent adoption. In the US, it is legal in every state for single parents to adopt. However, in some states it is illegal for same-sex couples to adopt children. For the real kicker, in Florida (where I am from), homosexual peo…

I never was convinced single parent adoption was a good idea.

Re: On Geeks and Gays

#29

Post by tman »

puredemo wrote: post #23
tman wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While mirror image thinking about gays is fun (they're just heterosexuals with a bit flip), it's not all that realist . Before we get to adoption, lets analyze an easier statement: Gays shouldn't be allowed to become Catholic priests. What? Can it be defended? Well, you've heard about the abuse cases. Two-thirds of the problem, going by published numbers, involve priests who have sex with young boys. These are not ch…

How about just not discriminating?

Before I reply, I'd like to find out what you mean by that statement.

Do you mean, "Let us be willfully blind and refuse to engage our senses, not recognizing any differences between homosexuals and heterosexuals despite large behavioral differences (beyond sexual preference) which do exist."

Or do you mean, "Despite your arguments, I categorically state that no differences between these groups exist (beyond the sexual preference of each). I state this without any argument of my own, please accept it for no reason that I care to state."

Re: On Geeks and Gays

#30

Post by aphyr »

tman wrote: post #19
RyanMcGreal wrote: post #4

All in all, a great essay. But: >I’m conflicted about whether gay couples should be allowed to adopt. Why on earth shouldn't a gay couple be allowed to adopt?

While mirror image thinking about gays is fun (they're just heterosexuals with a bit flip), it's not all that realist . Before we get to adoption, lets analyze an easier statement: Gays shouldn't be allowed to become Catholic priests. What? Can it be defended? Well, you've heard about the abuse cases. Two-thirds of the problem, going by published numbers, involve priests who have sex with young boys. These are not ch…

...you have to make a case for choosing a segment of our population (homosexuals) that is more likely to do drugs, have psychiatric problems, etc., etc., and singling them out to allow adoption

We are not singling them out to allow adoption, unless by "singling out" you mean "including in the same privileged class as straight housewives, baristas, scientists, garbage collectors, members of the armed service, naturalists, and, depending on the state, convicted felons."

Seriously. Parents come in all shapes and sizes--surprisingly few restrictions are placed. Why are gay people barred from adopting when longitudinal studies show their parenting outcomes are basically indistinguishable from "normal" families?

Post reply on HN