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

111–120 of 232 posts

Re: On Geeks and Gays

#111

Post by sketerpot »

philwelch wrote: post #102
qeorge wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's fine if you take the word "homophobia" at face value, but it's become a politically overloaded term, and it's not right to accuse people of mental illness just because they disagree with you.

We need a better word for "anti-gay bigotry". Or, better yet, a set of such words which apply to common subsets of the LGBTQ alphabet-soup categorization. Right now all we have are words like homophobia and transphobia, which would do alright if only they didn't have the mental illness connotations.

Re: On Geeks and Gays

#112

Post by xenophanes »

caryme wrote: post #41
j-g-faustus wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Let me know when you realize that 4 year olds are people too, and should have full human rights.

If you won't accept that case, then you're part of the problem that doesn't see it's the same issue over and over.

Re: On Geeks and Gays

#113

Post by mbrubeck »

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.

The same argument was made against interracial marriage - that the children would be stigmatized, or harmed in some other way. (In fact, one good first step toward removing the stigma is to stop treating the parents differently under the law.)

I am a person of mixed race, and I'm shocked at how many of the exact same arguments against gay marriage and adoption were also used against interracial marriage and interracial adoption. (It's unnatural; it's against God's will; it will harm the children; it will harm traditional marriages; it will destroy the institution of marriage...) I'm curious if the people making the arguments are aware of this and would also oppose interracial marriage if possible, or if they just don't see the parallels.

Re: On Geeks and Gays

#114

Post by jon_dahl »

MartinCron wrote: post #99
pbiggar wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've found that geeks tend to be either very religious, or very atheist, but rarely in between (or at least much more rarely than in real life). Perhaps it is the same with other moral issues. (Alternatively, perhaps JGC is very religious, and his religion guides his views on gay adoption and marriage.)

What? Being theist or atheist is not a moral issue, it's a philosophical issue about the nature of the universe. The notion that atheists are less moral than theists is a common misconception.

I don't think he was saying that one (religious or atheist) is more moral than the other. Just that when we geeks take a stand on a fundamental question, whether it's moral or philosophical/theological, we often do it with conviction.

Re: On Geeks and Gays

#115

Post by tome »

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?

An interesting question that might help everyone learn how they feel about this:

Would you allow a pair of people who are not in a relationship to adopt, for example, two great friends who just happen to live together, but are not in a sexual or romantic relationship with each other?

Re: On Geeks and Gays

#116

Post by tsally »

joubert wrote: post #108
tsally wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's the logic of a non-homophobic argument I have heard of. The majority of research on parenting and raising children has been done with heterosexual parents as a base assumption. Someone who is extremely supportive of gay rights who is also a rational thinker might be cautious when considering the issue of adoption by homosexuals. Why be cautious? Because it is necessary to take reasonable measures to guarantee…

So, if i get a surrogate and we have a child, and my gay partner wants to adopt the baby so that we are both legal parents, surely it make no sense to deny the adoption?

The argument I mentioned is concerned with psychological development not biological. I don't see how what your saying relates to the argument in any sense. Based on the argument, it would make sense to deny the adoption in your scenario.

To present the argument again, because homosexual parenting hasn't been extensively studied, we need to avoid homosexual adoption until a foundation of research can be established in this area. Research on developmental psychology guides many of the child adoption rules currently in place. The argument is that the same standard should be applied to homosexual adoption.

Again, note my use of distancing language. This isn't my opinion; I do not hold one on this issue because I'm not qualified in this area.

EDIT: The American Psychological Association has filed an Amicus Brief that is relevant.

"Because many beliefs about lesbian and gay parents and their children are open to empirical testing, psychological research can evaluate their accuracy.... 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... Some areas of research, such as gender development, and some periods of life, such as adolescence, have been described by reviewers as understudied and deserving of greater attention... There is no evidence to suggest that lesbian women or gay men are unfit to be parents or that psychosocial development among children of lesbian women or gay men is compromised relative to that among offspring of heterosexual parents... although a considerable amount of information is available, additional research would further our understanding of lesbian and gay parents and their children... It should be acknowledged that research on lesbian and gay parents and their children, though no longer new, is still limited in extent. Although studies of gay fathers and their children have been conducted (Patterson, 2004), less is known about children of gay fathers than about children of lesbian mothers."

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

Personally, seems like a reasonable standard of proof to me, but I think the people who hold the argument I've been presenting would say that the standard of proof necessary is up to the courts. Clearly there are areas that need more research, as the research is "limited in extent".

Re: On Geeks and Gays

#118

Post by lena »

barry-cotter wrote: post #77
j-g-faustus wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Where, exactly, do you draw the line? Do you want tolerance or support? Gay: Suppose the "gay germ theory"[1] is correct. To allow vaccination/prophylaxis or not? Labor: Freedom to legally organise is to me utterly unobjectionable, but I remember picking up a book on trade unionism in the library once and being completely unable to grasp the sense behind one of the articles in which the authors took it as given that…

Women's: Women make less than men on average. They also make very different choices of what jobs to work in, how many hours to work

The problem is not that women make less than men on average, they often make less than men when doing the exact same job, for the exact same hours.

and they are much more likely to have interruptions in their career.

Did you read the thread about job hoppers, where many men said that job hopping was a good thing because it was in their best interest?

Re: On Geeks and Gays

#119

Post by caryme »

sketerpot wrote: post #111
philwelch wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's fine if you take the word "homophobia" at face value, but it's become a politically overloaded term, and it's not right to accuse people of mental illness just because they disagree with you.

We need a better word for "anti-gay bigotry". Or, better yet, a set of such words which apply to common subsets of the LGBTQ alphabet-soup categorization. Right now all we have are words like homophobia and transphobia, which would do alright if only they didn't have the mental illness connotations.

Heterosexism: discrimination or prejudice by heterosexuals against homosexuals (Merriam-Webster)

Re: On Geeks and Gays

#120

Post by SapphireSun »

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 don't think that the idea was "Why would you stand up for a gay man if you're not gay?". It was more along the lines of "Since you are not a representative of this group, what would give you the motivation to pick up THIS particular cup and follow it through to completion?" There are lots of other injustices that he might be a representative member of and could have campaigned against.

I'm really happy that he picked it up on principle. In a way, it's a lot more pure that someone _not_ gay spearheaded the effort so there is no appearance of a conflict of interest (rational or irrational). Turing was the man, and I'm glad Britain recognizes that now.

Post reply on HN