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

41–50 of 232 posts

Re: On Geeks and Gays

#41

Post by caryme »

j-g-faustus wrote: post #33
mpk wrote: post #11

I'd say that geeks tend to think about their environment a lot more than other people because geeks tend to think about systems in general. I have never encountered a rational argument for homophobia. Gay people seem to me to be just as likely to be virtuous or decadent as straight people. Discriminating against people for having a different sexual orientation seems totally irrational to me. As far as I'm concerned,…

I've always thought that [gay | labor | women's | black's | etc] rights all collapse to merely human rights, and find it curious that we see the need to carve it up in a whole bunch of special cases.

That's just the thing. If we could realize that it's the same issue over and over again, perhaps it would become less of an issue. If only.

In US-parlance, all men are created equal.

We said that right off the bat. Once we decided that by men, we meant people, what further argument is there to have? All means all.

Re: On Geeks and Gays

#42

Post by tman »

aphyr wrote: post #30
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…

...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, naturali…

I don't think that convicted felons, baristi, or garbage men are great choices for adoption either. The first, obviously, the second two because we can afford to have high standards. We can afford to insist on college degrees and middle-class incomes. High standards.

Now, the problem that gay men seem to have with sexual abuse (while Catholic) wasn't enough to give you pause? It gives me pause. I'm even worried about allowing men (gay or straight) to be baby sitters. Because sexual abuse is an out-sized male thing. Does it bother me that men would be harmed by this restriction? No. Identity politics disgust me, even white male identity politics.

On to your argument. Why have high standards for adoption? Because there are too many people who want to adopt (white kids), and too few (white) kids to go around. Hence, we can be demanding.

Arguments to be "fair" don't go far with me.

Re: On Geeks and Gays

#43

Post by philwelch »

wallflower wrote: post #39
mpk wrote: post #11

I'd say that geeks tend to think about their environment a lot more than other people because geeks tend to think about systems in general. I have never encountered a rational argument for homophobia. Gay people seem to me to be just as likely to be virtuous or decadent as straight people. Discriminating against people for having a different sexual orientation seems totally irrational to me. As far as I'm concerned,…

> I have never encountered a rational argument for homophobia. A gay friend told me about the theory that homophobia is misogyny e.g. some people are homophobic because they don't like men acting like women (mannerisms, dress, voice pitch, sensitivity) because they dislike women.

Ironically enough, a homophobic friend told me about the theory that homosexuality is misogyny e.g. some men are homosexual because they dislike women and don't want to associate with them.

Interestingly enough, I'm pretty sure my comment will shock more people than your comment--even though both comments posit some sort of handwavy unsubstantiated psychological theory nakedly constructed to fit some sort of political bias, yours sounds better because it fits the political bias most of us--myself included--agree with.

Or--to put it a more direct way--speculating about the psychology of people who disagree with you is an especially useless type of ad hominem.

Re: On Geeks and Gays

#45

Post by dzorz »

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?

Devils advocate: a child raised by the gay couple might be stigmatized by its peers, so in the best interest of the child it might be better for the child to be raised in traditional nuclear family. If you look at it that way it is also a chicken and egg problem.

Re: On Geeks and Gays

#46

Post by petercooper »

tman wrote: post #29
puredemo wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 sexu…

Sure, there are certain differences in the median characteristics of different demographic groups. The median teenager is a less safe driver than the median 30-something (as reflected in insurance costs). The median man is, likely, more promiscuous than the median woman. And so on.

Nonetheless, it's a tenet of polite, modern society that slight demographic variations are not turned into generalizations over entire demographic groups.

Not allowing gay people to adopt because they're "more likely" to commit abuses is discrimination, whether or not you have the data to prove the logical statement.

Re: On Geeks and Gays

#47

Post by theBobMcCormick »

dzorz wrote: post #45
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?

Devils advocate: a child raised by the gay couple might be stigmatized by its peers, so in the best interest of the child it might be better for the child to be raised in traditional nuclear family. If you look at it that way it is also a chicken and egg problem.

By that logic, we shouldn't allow ugly couples to adopt either. WAY too stigmatizing. :-)

Re: On Geeks and Gays

#48

Post by cj »

dzorz wrote: post #45
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?

Devils advocate: a child raised by the gay couple might be stigmatized by its peers, so in the best interest of the child it might be better for the child to be raised in traditional nuclear family. If you look at it that way it is also a chicken and egg problem.

Are you saying being raised in a foster home makes for a better childhood than having two loving (same sex) parents?

Re: On Geeks and Gays

#49

Post by profgubler »

aphyr wrote: post #30
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…

...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, naturali…

Just for my information, what do you mean by parenting outcomes? How is that defined?

Re: On Geeks and Gays

#50

Post by caryme »

drivebyacct wrote: post #31
sophacles wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I suppose. I just don't like the fact that the article exists solely based on the premise that a nonhomosexual has to justify speaking up for a homosexual. It's that precise dichotomy and separation that we need to be moving away from, not framing entire blog posts about.

I mean, I don't like it either, but it's not at all uncommon for straight men to avoid standing up for gay men for fear of being perceived as gay.

I don't see the article as a defense of JGC's sexuality in any way, but as a challenge to stand up for justice even of those who are different from us.

Post reply on HN