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

91–100 of 232 posts

Re: On Geeks and Gays

#91

Post by wheels »

aphyr wrote: post #26
wheels wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the reservations are built on a couple things: • It's not hard to argue that it's good for a child to have a mom and a dad. I'm not going to get into such, but whether or not you agree, let's just accept that it's not a wild notion. • Adoption is one of the few places where there's any chance for society to evaluate the fitness of parents before they can have children. Usually it just happens. • A male-male c…

It's not hard to argue that it's good for a child to have a mom and a dad. The APA's official stance (one borne out by my personal experience with gay families) is that there is no difference in the well-being of children raised by two same-sex parents or two opposite-sex parents. "...the results of existing research comparing lesbian and gay parents to heterosexual parents and children of lesbian and gay parents to…

See, the thing is, both replies jumped directly on the point I was trying not to make.

I wasn't answering with my belief, nor was I saying that gay parents are worse, but trying to get at where the root of apprehension might lie with liberal-minded folks, such as the case was in the article.

What I was trying to say is that such a belief is fairly prevalent and well short of nutjobbery.

Re: On Geeks and Gays

#92

Post by rjurney »

caryme wrote: post #63
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.

Although I agree with you that Turing's death was an incredible loss, I wouldn't be so sure he would have died a natural death. Turing had considered suicide before, during his failed work on the Riemann hypothesis. At that time, he schemed up a suicide mechanism involving an apple and electrical wiring which he described in a letter to an old boyfriend. Turing was pretty eccentric, romanticized suicide (and was a li…

He uh... also tried to poison his PhD advisor.

Re: On Geeks and Gays

#93

Post by [deleted] »

joubert wrote: post #78
natrius wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was being excessively charitable in my framing of the argument. It makes zero sense for it to be illegal for gay people to adopt. It could make sense to prefer straight couples over gays and singles, which would effectively exclude them if the demand for adoption outstrips supply as much as I presume.

Why? What magical quality does a straight couple bring to the table? Are they innately less dysfunctional than a gay couple?

[deleted]

Re: On Geeks and Gays

#94

Post by benatkin »

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…

To me, it boils down to my belief that many people wouldn't accept this statement by P. C. Hodgell†:

"That which can be destroyed by the truth should be."

Some people seem to be afraid of truth. I've noticed this when I've turned down cheese, and upon being asked why, saying I think it's unhealthy for me. Often they start saying why they can't live without cheese, or why eating cheese regularly doesn't increase the risk of disease unless you have a certain risk factor (like high blood pressure or a sedentary lifestyle). This happens without me doing anything except turn it down. I find people have an easier time accepting it if I act like I'm turning it down for moral reasons rather than nutritional reasons.

As for how truth-avoidance leads to this: I think that people don't want to accept a certain truth often don't want to accept justice that's based on that truth. In this case, the truth is that, even though he's gay, Turing deserves fairness just like everyone else.

† I got the quote from http://yudkowsky.net/rational/virtues and am surprised not to be able to find it on one of the major quote sites.

Re: On Geeks and Gays

#95

Post by tsally »

bdr wrote: post #85
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.

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 still have been wrong on a moral level. I'm simply arguing that in addition to the usual costs of murder (felt in large part by the deceased family), society has borne an additional cost.

Re: On Geeks and Gays

#96

Post by defen »

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…

> Nonetheless, it's a tenet of polite, modern society that slight demographic variations are not turned into generalizations over entire demographic groups.

Howver, a corollary of this tenet of modern society is that unequal representation in a given field/endeavor is prima facie evidence of discrimination, regardless of differences in group median ability. I trust I do not need to provide examples of this?

Re: On Geeks and Gays

#97

Post by joubert »

devinj wrote: post #84
joubert wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why? What magical quality does a straight couple bring to the table? Are they innately less dysfunctional than a gay couple?

Magical quality? Well, 2 genders instead of one. I don't find the idea that children take their cues depending on the gender of the parent at all unreasonable. It's certainly entered the common mind as an idea of what happens. Is it true? No idea, haven't seen any research on it. But there's at least a possible basis for the "magical" quality of gender being important.

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?

Re: On Geeks and Gays

#98

Post by frossie »

caryme wrote: post #79
tman wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think that convicted felons, baristi, or garbage men are great choices for adoption either. The first, obviously, the second two because we can afford to have high standards. We can afford to insist on college degrees and middle-class incomes. High standards. Now, the problem that gay men seem to have with sexual abuse (while Catholic) wasn't enough to give you pause? It gives me pause. I'm even worried about…

Do you know any gay men? This is beyond offensive to me. I'm a hacker, a Christian, and a gay man. I've been a babysitter and a church camp counselor (of children from fourth through twelfth grade). Before you talk about the "problem gay men seem to have with sexual abuse," we should talk. A man's value is not defined by his sexual orientation.

This is beyond offensive to me. I'm a hacker, a Christian, and a gay man.

Dude, I'm a hacker-herding atheist straight female, and that was beyond offensive to me too, so I figure between you and me we have all the bases covered :-)

First time I have hoped that somebody was trolling on HN though...

Re: On Geeks and Gays

#99

Post by MartinCron »

pbiggar wrote: post #18
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 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.

Re: On Geeks and Gays

#100

Post by sjs »

lincolnq wrote: post #88
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.

That doesn't seem obvious to me. Inventions can change many lives, but the scope of a person's social life is necessarily limited. Why do you say that?

I don't think any amount of human suffering is really worth some perceived progress. Not only because the progress will likely come around eventually anyway if it's for the better, but if we're trying to better humankind we shouldn't start by harming even a single human.
Post reply on HN