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

131–140 of 232 posts

Re: On Geeks and Gays

#131

Post by axod »

tsally wrote: post #54

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.

You make it sound like he was murdered because he was gay. I don't think it was quite that clear cut.

I'm quite a believer in "if he hadn't done it, someone else would have" personally. I don't mean to belittle anyones contribution, but the idea that there's only one genius who can come up with something seems very unlikely to me.

Most inventions are 'discovered' by many people at around the same time.

Re: On Geeks and Gays

#132

Post by bootload »

elblanco wrote: post #55
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.

"... 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) ..."

However this technique does not always work. Bullying is about finding weakness and applying an asymmetric attack. I'm not sure this approach will work with say a group of girls?

Re: On Geeks and Gays

#133

Post by jacquesm »

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?

I don't think that holds water. Gay rights are great, but childrens rights are greater. If there is any doubt about the rights of either group being infringed on by 'experimenting' then you have an immediate problem because nobody will sign off on experimenting on children to see if in the long term it will matter or not.

If there would be large numbers of cases proving that it essentially makes no difference then that would help, but you're in a chicken-and-the-egg situation.

I know of one gay couple in my circle of friends that would like to adopt a child and they've come to the conclusion that they themselves can't come to a 100% agreement between the two of them about what that responsibility exactly entails. It was a very eye opening discussion, because I think I went away a changed person, essentially form going to saying 'I don't see why not' to 'maybe it really is better, who knows'.

For me that's a weird thing because when I thought about this before I always thought that gay people would not 'overlap' with straight people on this issue but would be on the far side of a barrier that you can not cross because you can not imagine what it is exactly like to be gay when you are not.

This is a very complex issue, societal pressures are such that simply being raised as the child of two gay parents puts undue pressure on a child (for instance peer pressure), and that can cause serious damage. That's the sort of argument that they went on about and I had never even thought of it from that angle.

Re: On Geeks and Gays

#134

Post by [deleted] »

tsally wrote: post #95
bdr wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if he'd just been an ordinary guy? I think the damage to his life and the lives of those who knew him is more important than what he would have invented.

Just to be clear, subjecting someone of lesser brilliance (99.9999999% of the population) to Turing's treatment would be equally immoral. Seriously destabilizing a suicidal person is murder and on a moral level I don't believe in claiming that a particular murder is more or less immoral than another. Murder is murder and I don't think you can compare magnitudes. So if he had been an ordinary guy, his murder would sti…

[deleted]

Re: On Geeks and Gays

#135

Post by dejb »

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…

I would argue that the problems with Catholic Priests is largely down to the requirement for them to be celibate.

Firstly it represents an important selection bias - most people would not want to promise to be celibate for the rest of their lives. Those who do do are likely to have 'outlier' sexual feeling and thoughts.

More obvious is that because they have no legitimate means to fulfil their sexual desires they are far more likely to find illegitimate means to do so.

A more sinister explanation is that they are attracted to the clergy because they are aware that it offers them the opportunity to commit abuse.

Re: On Geeks and Gays

#136

Post by axod »

jacquesm wrote: post #127
xenophanes wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Some of the human rights are conditional upon whether or not the person they are applied to is 'of age' or not. There are some inconsistencies but they've definitely managed to avoid most of them.

... and sound mind. Which may rule out women.

(JOKING).

Re: On Geeks and Gays

#137

Post by jacquesm »

tome wrote: post #115
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?

The deal here is that long term stability is what it is all about. Heterosexuals and Homosexuals alike appear in all variations, some are promiscuous, some stay with the same partner all their lives. The perception is that in the gay scene because there are no children to worry about sexuality is much freer than it is in the hetero scene.

I doubt if that is actually the case though.

But I think the 'stable family arrangement' factor weighs heavily in all this. And elsewhere in this thread I think I've shown that there can be pressure on a child simply because it is raised by two gay parents, after all, it immediately makes you the odd one out. Of course other children should be brought up to realize that it makes no difference as far as the child is concerned, but unfortunately that is not the case.

Teenagers that are gay as a rule do what they can to stay under water in plenty of cases for fear of the kind of nastiness that can come out of being 'out' at a young age. Not all schools deal with stuff like that well - in fact, most schools don't.

Re: On Geeks and Gays

#138

Post by dazzawazza »

axod wrote: post #131
tsally wrote: post #54

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.

You make it sound like he was murdered because he was gay. I don't think it was quite that clear cut. I'm quite a believer in "if he hadn't done it, someone else would have" personally. I don't mean to belittle anyones contribution, but the idea that there's only one genius who can come up with something seems very unlikely to me. Most inventions are 'discovered' by many people at around the same time.

Anyone who has ever discovered anything surely knows this? The world is full of curious minds. This doesn't belittle this individual curious mind but honour the millions of others.

Re: On Geeks and Gays

#139

Post by boredguy8 »

hoelle wrote: post #109
caryme wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Saying that all people are created equally does not mean that all people are free from error or consequence.

Right, what about those who claim being homosexual is a choice? To blur the line more, what about killers who are insane?

Rushing to edge cases is just bad ethics.

Re: On Geeks and Gays

#140

Post by axod »

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 you asked the population if they'd have been happy being brought up by gay parents, the vast majority would say "no".
Post reply on HN