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

31–40 of 232 posts

Re: On Geeks and Gays

#31

Post by drivebyacct »

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…

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.

Re: On Geeks and Gays

#32

Post by lallysingh »

sliverstorm wrote: post #28
caryme wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I realize this is an explanation for the argument against same-sex couple adoption, but in the same vein I'd like to point out that where this argument falls apart is in the legality of single parent adoption. In the US, it is legal in every state for single parents to adopt. However, in some states it is illegal for same-sex couples to adopt children. For the real kicker, in Florida (where I am from), homosexual peo…

I never was convinced single parent adoption was a good idea.

1 parent is still better than 0.

Re: On Geeks and Gays

#33

Post by j-g-faustus »

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.

Re: On Geeks and Gays

#34

Post by caryme »

As a gay geek, I found myself drawn to Turing's story - a tragic story of (probably) unrequited love as a schoolboy, a heroic story of a great thinker and war hero, and a heart-wrenching story of humiliating rejection by the same country he served.

I'm surprised JGC was assumed to be gay for standing up for Alan Turing, but proud that he handled the assumptions well. From our perspective, Turing's story is so much bigger than his sexuality. But to the common person, who likely knows little to nothing about Turing beyond what the news says - that he was convicted of homosexuality by his country - this advocacy appears to be one for gay people.

Thank you, Mr. Graham-Cumming, not just for standing up for Turing, but for simply explaining you are not gay without getting defensive. Too often, straight men handle being assumed as gay as a terrible and dehumanizing accusation.

Re: On Geeks and Gays

#35

Post by dinde »

I love these things, as a gay coder I get to feel special and like I'm representing my kind with my views. ;) In my experience, it's not geeks specifically that are more accepting, but educated people in general. It seems obvious but I think that's all it is.

Re: On Geeks and Gays

#36

Post by lallysingh »

natrius wrote: post #6
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 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…

Why? they had their chance! It was a hetero couple that created & ditched the kid in the first place+. Every couple has their own yin-yang dynamic, and it has very little to do with whether they're an innie or an outy.

+ Ignoring tragedies, of course.

Edit: footnote symbol caused formatting changes.

Re: On Geeks and Gays

#37

Post by sophacles »

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.

Sure, I agree with that, but it is nice to show the world that "non-members of group X" can stand up for group X anyway. This is still a bit of a tricky thing. See non-members sticking up for a group can imply weakness, and goes against certain empowerment based philosophies. Think how many times you've seen the equivalent of "I don't need you to fight my battles" in some "X movement" themed movie.

Re: On Geeks and Gays

#39

Post by wallflower »

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.

Re: On Geeks and Gays

#40

Post by TNO »

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.

I'm not so sure about labor rights... More info needed.
Post reply on HN