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

221–230 of 232 posts

Re: On Geeks and Gays

#221

Post by pbhjpbhj »

Confusion wrote: post #167
dejb wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I have never encountered a rational argument for homophobia. From parents and close relatives it is easy to see a evolutionary reason. However from unrelated males (more common) it would seem that they would have every reason to encourage homosexuality in other males. Maybe it comes from when most people who lived together were related.

From parents and close relatives it is easy to see a evolutionary reason Which is not a rational reason. That would be the naturalistic fallacy.

I can't see how it falls to the naturalistic fallacy ("that which is natural is good").

Surely a neo-darwinist sees the only goal of life as perpetuation of a specific genetic code. If an only off-spring chooses to take sexual partners that prevent the perpetuation of the parents genes beyond that offspring's generation then the parents genetic material will cease to be passed on. This is negative not because it is merely natural but because it destroys the only apparent purpose in such a system.

I can see how you'd argue against such a position but I can't see how you can see it is not rational.

Re: On Geeks and Gays

#222

Post by pbhjpbhj »

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.

I've always assumed that Turing was bisexual, he certainly had a pretty intense relationship with his fiancee. I can't really understand how, if he was an openly gay man (as I've seen claimed) that he needed to make the confession that he did to his fiancee who he spent his leisure time and work time with; how is she couldn't know but everyone else did?

He also appeared to be an ephebophile. I have a hypothesis that his sexual liaisons with teenagers were an attempt to recapture his relationship with his (sole and very close) friend that died when he was at boarding school.

Re: On Geeks and Gays

#223

Post by MichaelSalib »

tsally wrote: post #103
joubert wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm skeptical. What cues? Are you thinking a girl learns how she should act by emulating a mom, and the same for a boy in relation to his dad?

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…

In American society we place an especially high value on protecting the rights of people who cannot defend themselves, including children and the disenfranchised.

No, we don't. We like to think we do. Consider: most Americans agree that a substantial number of prisoners suffer repeated rape and abuse. This is so commonly accepted that it is a well known trope in mass market entertainment. Prisoners obviously cannot defend themselves. Yet there is zero political pressure to reform the criminal justice system to alleviate this problem. Because we really don't care that much about protecting people who can't protect themselves.

More to the point, if we did place a high value on protecting children, then child protective services organizations would not be chronically underfunded and understaffed. In most places, CPS case workers are so overwhelmed by absurd case loads, that they cannot give sufficient attention to most of their cases, so children end up slipping through the cracks.

Re: On Geeks and Gays

#224

Post by henrikschroder »

axod wrote: post #169
henrikschroder wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course, you'll find the same pattern among some straight couples as well. Your original statement that most gay couples fit the pattern simply isn't true, most couples of gay men is two guys living together, dividing household chores in a way that does not follow stereotypical gender roles, and most couples of gay women living together is the same. Hell, even most straight couples I know don't divide household cho…

I'm not sure where you're basing that on. Most couples have pretty strongly defined roles. For example, if a shelf needs putting up, it's more than likely that the male will be tasked with this. If a daughter is after makeup advice, it's likely that they'll go to their mother rather than father. Perhaps you're reading way more into what I'm saying than is actually there.

Fair enough, I had totally different actions in mind, but for your examples I can see how those are very likely to be divided by gender in straight households.

However, when it comes to gay relationships, you generally can't make any prediction about who does what or how the chores are divided. The notion that all relationships have (or worse: has to have) a "male" and a "female" is completely unfounded.

Re: On Geeks and Gays

#225

Post by tsally »

MichaelSalib wrote: post #223
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…

In American society we place an especially high value on protecting the rights of people who cannot defend themselves, including children and the disenfranchised. No, we don't. We like to think we do. Consider: most Americans agree that a substantial number of prisoners suffer repeated rape and abuse. This is so commonly accepted that it is a well known trope in mass market entertainment. Prisoners obviously cannot d…

Ok, (1) Problems with the prison system and (2) underfunded child services compared to: (1) ending slavery, (2) desegregation, (3) women's suffrage, (4) free speech for extreme minorities, (5) freedom of religion for extreme minorities, (6) strong hate crime legislation, (7) landing at Normandy, (8) affirmative action, (9) free public defenders, (10) a right to a trial by your peers, (11) ...

The fact that American protection of the defenseless isn't completely perfect doesn't mean we don't care about it as a society. You gave two examples and then extrapolated from your small sample to claim American society doesn't actually care about the disenfranchised. I think you might need some perspective.

Re: On Geeks and Gays

#226

Post by MichaelSalib »

tsally wrote: post #225
MichaelSalib wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In American society we place an especially high value on protecting the rights of people who cannot defend themselves, including children and the disenfranchised. No, we don't. We like to think we do. Consider: most Americans agree that a substantial number of prisoners suffer repeated rape and abuse. This is so commonly accepted that it is a well known trope in mass market entertainment. Prisoners obviously cannot d…

Ok, (1) Problems with the prison system and (2) underfunded child services compared to: (1) ending slavery, (2) desegregation, (3) women's suffrage, (4) free speech for extreme minorities, (5) freedom of religion for extreme minorities, (6) strong hate crime legislation, (7) landing at Normandy, (8) affirmative action, (9) free public defenders, (10) a right to a trial by your peers, (11) ... The fact that American p…

The fact that American protection of the defenseless isn't completely perfect doesn't mean we don't care about it as a society.

I don't think this a reasonable way to analyse societal priorities. Obviously, all human societies are going to place some value on protecting the defenceless. I mean, can you think of any human society that placed no value whatsoever on protecting the defenceless? So if that's the metric you're going to judge on, then no society can ever fail. As a result, this strikes me as a pretty useless metric.

The original comment used the phrase "especially high value on protecting the rights of people who cannot defend themselves." The only reasonable way I know of to assess such statements is to compare America to peer nations that have similar levels of wealth and similar forms of government. I mean, "especially high" seems to require a relative comparison. Specifically, one might look at child poverty, child malnourishment, or infant morality. On any of those metrics, the US ranks dead last (or near dead last) when compared with peer nations. That result does not seem to be compatible with the notion that the richest country in the world has a greater concern for the welfare of defenceless children than other western nations. Don't you agree?

Look, you can point to my examples and claim that they're special cases, but human organizations demonstrate their values with their budgets. Talk is cheap. Paying for enough CPS staff is not. Well, actually, it is really cheap given the benefits. Underfunded CPS? American society doesn't care all that much about disadvantaged children. Or rather, American society values low marginal tax rates and absolute parental autonomy higher than providing for child protection services. That doesn't mean that American society is bad or evil or that Americans are monsters, but it does mean that you can't justify policies by talking about our unique commitment to protecting defenceless children.

Re: On Geeks and Gays

#227

Post by bootload »

elblanco wrote: post #171
jjs wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I knew, because of that, that if I was called out to a fight, I could show up at the designated time and place and give what I could. Whenever someone would try to designate a time and place, my response was invariably, "No. Right now." I thereby avoided the scenario where I won the fight in private but the challenger publicly claimed victory anyway. It also cut down the number of challengers very quickly. I didn't h…

I kinda wish I could get in my time machine and use that instead. I would have been much less painful on my nose and far fewer broken pairs of glasses. Somehow, I never thought of doing that at the time.

"... Whenever someone would try to designate a time and place, my response was invariably, "No. Right now." ..."

The other reason is to avoid an ambush.

Re: On Geeks and Gays

#228

Post by dejb »

angelbob wrote: post #206
dejb wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Encouraging the propagation your genes not rational? In evolutionary terms that is the the goal.

Generalizing from a situation where it may apply (close relatives) to one where it does not apply isn't rational, even if it's a vaguely similar-looking situation.

- The post I was replying wasn't about that part as far as I could tell.

- The exact same reasoning has been applied to why we commit altruistic acts by richard dawkins (sorry no reference). The general idea is that certain behaviours are somewhat hard-coded and applying them to everyone was a good enough approximation for helping your close relatives in the past.

- This is speculation. Generalisation is quite rational when speculating.

Re: On Geeks and Gays

#229

Post by dejb »

wdewind wrote: post #188
dejb wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have no doubt that many gay couples do quite well at raising children. I would however put those cases were one of the biological parents was present in a different category to what we are talking about (which I suspect is your case). > "Beliefs that lesbian and gay adults are not fit parents likewise have no empirical foundation." As I argued in my post, most studies are likely to effected by selection bias so it…

Why do gay parents need to prove their parenting abilities when no one else does? Where are your empirical studies on straight parents being good parents, or "better" than gay parents? What is your definition of a good parent, anyway? What is your definition of "natural" (as in "naturally good parents")? We shouldn't do either of those options, they are both total horseshit. It's not a matter of what rule we should a…

> Why do gay parents need to prove their parenting abilities when no one else does?

Straight parents are the origin of the our species. Everyone of your biological ancestors forms a direct and unbroken line of 'Straight parents'. It is logical to assume children are well adapted to straight parents and vice versa. In fact we have no other real choice.

When a company develops a new substance and wants to use it as a food additive we naturally ask if it has been tested properly before allowing human consumption. But we do not ask whether commonly eaten foods such as rice and bananas need testing. The have been tested throughout history.

To put it another way,

Re: On Geeks and Gays

#230

Post by philwelch »

jimbokun wrote: post #204
philwelch wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The connotation of "heterosexism" seems closer to "heteronormativity" than "homophobia"--basically the assumption that everyone is heterosexual, or the establishment of heterosexuality as a social norm. For (potentially poor) example, if a television series has a homosexual character who is stereotyped and portrayed in a negative light, that's homophobia. If a television series has no homosexual characters at all des…

I think it would make more sense to use this word the way homophobia is used now. It more closely parallels "racism" as the belief that some races are inherently superior to others. Would we call a TV show with no minority characters "racist?" Maybe, but it might be seen as stretching the meaning of the word, and the question of whether or not the show was actually racist would be a question to debate, not a part of…

"Would we call a TV show with no minority characters "racist?""

Though not in so many words, the kind of academic liberals who use words like "heterosexist" and "heteronormative" would.

Post reply on HN