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

51–60 of 232 posts

Re: On Geeks and Gays

#51

Post by elblanco »

sophacles wrote: post #25
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…

It's amazing what people can overcome by simply being truthful and logical.

Re: On Geeks and Gays

#52

Post by qeorge »

philwelch wrote: post #43
wallflower wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 politica…

I don't think that's quite fair. The parent simply offered up a possible explanation for what is by all accounts an irrational fear.

Re: On Geeks and Gays

#53

Post by olefoo »

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.

One explanation of homophobia that has some support behind it is that the most homophobic men are fearful of their own homoerotic impulses and are lashing out as 'proof' that they are anything but.

See http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=single-angr...

Re: On Geeks and Gays

#54

Post by tsally »

A thought: Alan Turing died when he was 41. Anything Turing would have invented between 41 and his natural death are things lost to society because of the persecution of homosexuals. What an incredible cost.

Re: On Geeks and Gays

#55

Post by elblanco »

bootload wrote: post #2

"... When I was a teenager at school I definitely did not fit in. I had glasses, was awkward, brainy, wore the school uniform because I had no idea what else to wear, and suffered insults from my classmates. One of these was the frequent and common slander “poof” (which is probably the closest thing to the American term “fag”). I was either ignored, or verbally abused, or physically assaulted. In one attack two boys…

Thanks for the links. While I was part of an "out" group growing up, I managed not to get bullied much (it usually stopped quickly after a round of fisticuffs and my father being a boxing coach in his youth). But a great many of my friends were bullied, some horribly. I've never been able to understand the mechanics of it very well even after having seen it so many times.

Re: On Geeks and Gays

#56

Post by dejb »

wdewind wrote: post #8
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…

BIG if

It is an arrangement that is extremely uncommon through most of human history/evolution so it seems reasonable to believe that humans may not be well adapted to brought up by gay couples. You could argue that the lack of genetic relationship to the parents overwhelms any difference between heterosexual and homosexual couples. But on balance it is not difficult to see why being reared be both a male and female parent could have advantages.

Additionally to this you could imagine a scenario where the genes that tended to increase heterosexuality also played a part in being a naturally 'good parent'.

Of course all these 'first assumptions' could and should be replaced by actual evidence and I know there is some of that. However I'd argue that studies and statistics to date are likely to be biased by the additional hurdles placed in front of gay couples. Only the very best and most dedicated gay couples are likely to allowed to adopt.

I'm not arguing that this justifies a blanket ban, but a degree of caution seems to make sense.

Re: On Geeks and Gays

#57

Post by cj »

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…

You'd be surprised at the number of straight-acting gay men that you interact with everyday.

You're basing your judgments on the flamboyant feminine gay men, the ones who you know are definitely gay. That's a very biased sampling to base your judgments on.

Re: On Geeks and Gays

#58

Post by cj »

profgubler wrote: post #49
aphyr wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

...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?

Success of the offspring, perhaps? Professionally, emotionally, etc.

Re: On Geeks and Gays

#59

Post by compay »

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.

There are lots of ways some kid's straight parents could be stigmatized too. Your argument doesn't really hold any water.

Re: On Geeks and Gays

#60

Post by astine »

petercooper wrote: post #46
tman wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 de…

Disallowing anyone an adoption for any reason is discrimination, if you understand the term literally.
Post reply on HN