Slashdot Mirror
Interview With Eric Allman And Kirk McKusick
Sygnus writes "An online gay youth resources community recently managed to secure an interview with Eric Allman and Kirk McKusick. The questions range from personal ("What was your motivation to raise children?") to technical ("What are your opinions of Darwin and MacOS X, which are based on your work?")."
Don Negro
Don Negro
Perl 6 will give you the big knob. -- Larry Wall
You could look at it through the Anti-Censorware Proxy. That should help. Or, maybe it'd work to just look at it using the IP address instead of the domain name.
Do domain names matter?
Nice troll, AC!
First of all, I am a Christian as well, and I somewhat agree with you, but you are approching this very badly. You are making youself out to be an intolerant biggot, which is something that these people already thought you where when you said you were a Christian. God does not hold any sin greater than another. I detest the ACT of homosexuallity, but you are supposed to love the soul of the sinner. "Love the sinner, hate the sin." You are judging, "Do not judge, lest ye be judged." You are just verifying the stereotype against us, and that makes it much harder to witness. Any sins of non-believers is between them and God, you are not supposed to evaluate their sin, only share with them the message. If they accept it, wonderful, if not, maybe they will eventually, we can only pray. What you are doing will only pull them away from the truth. Your sin of judgement is just as great as their sin of homosexuallity. John
We all go a little mad sometimes.... haven't you?
Prayer for AIDS
Oh Lord, look with horror and fury on this abomination against you and mankind. Send forth your Angels of Death to infect these sodomites with AIDS and cast them into the pit hell. Turn their lives to misery then grind their bones to dust. They have sinned against you and broken your laws. Now punish them for this abomination without mercy. Let AIDS increase in fury and rage without pause over the sodomites. We ask this in the name of Jesus. Amen.
.. is the attitude that you display. The ability of people to classify entire groups of other people ("homosexuals", "pagans", "Jews", etc.) as "wicked" has been the basis of the most heinous and atrocious episodes in the history of humankind. Nobody is asking you to agree with or participate in drug use, paganism, homosexual activity, or anything else that departs from your beliefs. But when you take your brush of righteousness and use it to color entire groups of people "evil" and "wicked", you are an embarking down an extraordinarily dangerous road that has led to bloodbaths of unimaginable proportions.
We're going down, in a spiral to the ground
Let me explain to you the way weblogs work: they link to other places for the purposes of discussion. The very domain name of the site indicates that they care, and the fact that slashdot linked to it indicates that at least one slashdot editor cares. The only other thing you need to know is that if you don't care you can refrain from participating. Is that so difficult to understand?
And, frankly, your hypocrisy is enough to make a stright fellow like me care. The sheer magnitude of hostility in here today makes me think a little exposure to the subject would be good medicine for many.
The "cue the foo posts in 3, 2, 1..." posts will commence with no subsequent foo posts in 3, 2, 1...
Sounds like "sheer 'homophobia'" to me. You've discredited yourself with this statement.. but this is not my point. I rather doubt that you have ever met any children who are the product of two same-sex parents. Guess what? They certainly have a chance of being well-adjusted happy people.. in fact, my experience and studies (I haven't any links handy) have shown that from all testable aspects, children raised by same-sex couples do better on average than others.
Shocking? Not really. Factors to consider: A -lot- of kids these days are raised by a single parent. No matter what your reasoning you have to concede that two parents are better than one. Also, gay couples with children are in a much more hazardous condition than straight couples with children. The legal climate is far from friendly, the social climate is even worse.. a gay couple has to be much more serious about raising children than a straight couple would have to be. This means more love and devotion to each other --- much better than a straight couple fighting all the time/getting divorced. A less certain point is that more tolerant, liberal people will naturally be prone to raise better kids (more emphasis on feelings, intelligence, constructive problem solving?).
And.. since I know you're thinking it.. the kids don't always turn out gay. Fancy that.. homosexual parents tend to hope that their progeny will make their own decisions about sexuality.
Fair enough.
I disagree, because I know some of them. There are people who call themselves atheist because their parents were, or their peers are. I'm talking "strong atheism" here, too, a positive belief in no god or gods, rather than "weak atheism", which is just an absence of belief.
You don't need to be in a majority culture to be a sheep. You merely need to unthinkingly follow your peers or other authority figures.
You'd be surprised. I'm the moderator of a religious Usenet newsgroup, and we see such people all the time.
You also don't need to join an organisation to be a jock, or a goth, or a yuppie fashion victim, or any number of subcultures where people follow blindly. Nor is there an organisation of commercial television watchers. You'll still find such (non-organised) groups full of sheep.
I agree. Becoming a theist is also an individual decision. In a perfect world, people would understand this. In this imperfect world, many people call themselves theists or atheists without making the decision. These people are sheep.
Taken in context, I agree with the sentiment, but since Marx's day, religion has lost its unique status in this regard. Mass media is now the dominant opiate.
I suspect that we actually don't disagree on much but terminology here. My point is that sheep can be found anywhere, and true geeks know the differences between sheep and non-sheep no matter what their beliefs or absence thereof. That's why I like geek culture.
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
Sharing the message includes sharing the fact that we are sinners in need of salvation. Homosexuality is one of those sins, but by no means the only one, certainly. I do not agree that we are to ignore the sin, because it is part of "sharing the message". Thank God people didn't come to me saying I was just fine as I was, but I could be even better with a saviour. No, I was in dread need of such a saviour. That's the message.
Thank you C*ber P*trol!
I've known who these two people are for over ten years because of their high visibility in the free software world. This is the first time I've ever heard that they were gay, much less in a long-term relationship with each other. So, I'm not sure why you say "blatantly advertise". This was an interview that happened to be very focused on their relationship because of who was asking the questions. It certainly wasn't out-of-context.
The difference between theory and practice is that, in theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
For some reason that I still don't understand people from varius minorites tend to do very well.
.2% of the world popluation.
For Example, Linus is a Sweede from Finland, about 5% of the population of Finland are Sweeds but they tend to be much more prominent than that would indicate.
Also if you look at a list of Nobel prize winners more that 1 in 4 are Jews, despite the fact that we make up less than
There are a lot of very sucsesful Gay men and women in some fields.
Diversity is a good thing
Erlang Developer and podcaster
"// this is the most hacked, evil, bastardized thing I've ever seen. kjb"
Hey, he can post anon if he wants. /. just because of the advesarial nature of the site.
Although I've been out of the closet IRL for a couple of years, I've maintained a straight persona on
I even went so far as to invent stories.
Sad, I know, but I'll not cast stones at AC's.
That's what anonymous posting is for, right?
--Shoeboy
microsoftword.mp3 - it doesn't care that they're not words...
divorce between Christians is not allowed
For it not being allowed, there's an awful lot of it going on - the divorce rate among christians is actually higher(by 5-6%) than it is in the US population as a whole.
Places to meat Jewish women, well you can just go to a synagogue and wait. There is always someone who would love to set you up with her daughter. :)
I've also had good luck in the SCA and at Cons. College campuses often work. Well it did for me I went to Brandeis. And ofcourse in some areas there are Jewish singles dances the so called "Matzah ball".
Erlang Developer and podcaster
Hmmm. A remarkable mixture of stereotypes.
... is he the guy who can't even pick up guys??? :-)
I mean - does he dress well?
Can he dance?
Does he get on well with women?
Or
As someone else said, it's probably more that geeks find it easier to "come out". Hell, most of us were bullied or worse at school over interest in science or lack of interest in sport. A little thing like what consenting adults do in private is hardly going to matter to us.
As another example, look at religion. There are a number of high-profile Christians who were responsible for computing infrastructure which we all enjoy. Don Knuth and Larry Wall spring to mind immediately; there are quite a few more, too. One might expect in a highly rational field where atheism, agnosticism and non-traditional religions (e.g. Wicca, Discordia, Church of the Subgenius) abound such as this one, especially where people can get extremely emotional (geek rants are the best rants, no doubt about it), that more traditional religion would be an object of ridicule. Not so. It seems that real geeks don't mind what you believe so long as you believe it for the right reasons. (A geek would probably find sheep-like following of religion just as exasperating as sheep-like atheism.)
The geek community is a wonderful thing.
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
Sounds like "sheer 'homophobia'" to me. You've discredited yourself with this statement.. but this is not my point.
Glad you took time to make it then. You completely misunderstand the word homophobia, then -- or, you have an agenda to meet with it.
Am I afraid of people with homosexual behaviors? Hardly. Am I "afraid" of what homosexual behavior does to people? Yep. Am I "afraid" of what some heterosexual behavior does to people? Yep. Am I "afraid" of what smoking does to people? Yep. All in the same sense.
How this makes me "homophobic", I don't know. Maybe you can explain it.
I rather doubt that you have ever met any children who are the product of two same-sex parents.
Wrong-o.
Guess what? They certainly have a chance of being well-adjusted happy people.. in fact, my experience and studies (I haven't any links handy) have shown that from all testable aspects, children raised by same-sex couples do better on average than others.
Funny, I've seen studies and experiences that
said the opposite (probably can be accounted for by the fact that most studies/personal inquiries are backed by an agenda, my own included).
And.. since I know you're thinking it.. the kids don't always turn out gay. Fancy that.. homosexual parents tend to hope that their progeny will make their own decisions about sexuality.
You didn't even read my post if you thought that's what I was thinking. Take a little time to do so.
--
Libertarianism is rich wolves and poor sheep playing gambler's ruin for dinner.
I don't think you're a homophobe for saying this, but I do believe that you're mistaken.
There are, I think, two fallacies in your argument. One you acknowledge:
All things are not equal. Every couple is different and until some serious long-term research is done on this, you can't really make generalisations of this kind.
The other fallacy is on the topic of role models. Every boy needs a good male role model and every girl needs a good female role model, this is true. The opposite is also true: research seems to show that heterosexual men, on the whole, get the idea of what a "life partner" should be like from their mothers.
The fallacy is that the role models have to be parents. I know I'm influenced, for example, more by my grandfather than my father. For others it might be an aunt or uncle or a close family friend. Is there any real difference in the male role model arrangement between a lesbian couple raising a child and a heterosexual couple raising a child where the father is never home?
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
It's obvious you've thought about this issue a bit, and I think you still have more thinking to do. For example, you write: That having a good female mother and a good male father will get people farther along to being well-adjusted than not., yet you provide no evidence to support this statement. Why are heterosexuals more capable of raising children than homosexuals? You don't say why; you merely insist that it's probably better to be raised by straight parents.
Your argument is weak, but that doesn't stop you from concluding that gay couples should not be raising kids. Do you not realize that gay couples are raising children, right now, all over the U.S.? Are you going to use your crappy argument to argue that gay couples should be forbidden by law to adopt children? You wouldn't be the first to do so.
I, for one, will argue that the average gay male couple will make better parents than the average straight couple. Before you get all worked up over this statement, consider that gay men can not have children by accident. They have to fight anti-gay adoption agencies, anti-gay U.S. government, anti-gay foreign adoption agencies, anti-gay foreign governments, disapproval from family, disapproval from friends, and disapproval from society. My partner and I have faced all of these things. Compare this to any straight couple which can have a child by sheer accident and never have to worry about any of the hurdles that gay couples have to face.
Face it: If my partner and I want children, we have to work for it, and work for it hard. Much harder than the average straight couple will ever have to. And we do this because we want very much to have children of our own to love, raise, and turn into compassionate and responsible young men and women. And this is the experience for almost all of the gay men who wish to have children. It takes a lot of love, more than I've ever mustered for either myself or my partner.
In contrast, many straight couples can and do have children becuase the condom broke. How much love does that take?
Just some things to think about.
I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
"...I'll continue to be loud and proud for as long as neccesary."
Considering I've been reading your comments for well over a year (maybe more like two) AND I didn't know you were gay--you can't have been all that "loud and proud".
--
MailOne
Non-meta-modded "Overrated" mods are killing Slashdot
(Hey Ryan! Here's your proof!)
Because he is aroused by mail delivery :-P
Sorry, bad joke, back to the cage
:-) = I am happy
:^) = I am happy with my big nose
C:\> = I am happy with my OS
1. Some admitted generalities that may have something to do with it:
2. We work with intelligent, well educated people who think outside the box.
3. We are very much in demand, and firing (or not hiring) because of someone's sexual orientation hurts the employer more than the employee.
4.We tend to live in metropolitan high-tech areas that are more progressive than rural areas.
I am gay, and as a contractor I have lots of interview experience. I often out myself during an interview, because if they have a problem with it I'd rather find out then and not later. I haven't missed a job opportunity yet because of it. Now, back in the 80's, I was fired from two jobs. Times, they are a changing'.
Why do gay people always have to blatantly advertise the fact that they are gay?
How about the fact that silence encourages persecution and discrimination.
How about the fact that unless people realize that 1 in 10 are gay, they'll consider it freakish.
I'll admit that it's tacky, but I'll continue to be loud and proud for as long as neccesary.
--Shoeboy
Now look up the word "hacker" in your dictionary, use the definition that's there on slashdot and see how far it gets you. :-)
My problem is that the widening of the term "homophobia" to refer to any suggestion that homosexuality might be different from heterosexuality (apart from the obvious difference) desensitises people to real homophobia. There are still cases of homosexual people being discriminated against, assaulted (both physically and verbally) or killed because of their sexual orientation. This kind of violence is almost always caused by irrational fear. That fear is homophobia. Calling what namespace said "homophobia" makes it that much more likely that I will tune out when you say the word "homophobia" next time.
Don't get me wrong. I think namespace was wrong. But he was sincerely wrong, not wrong out of irrational fear.
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
The reason why some gay men and women advertise the fact that they are gay is so that they don't have to come out to anybody -- coming out is automatic.
I am a gay man who is, shall I say, "non-obvious." When I speak, yards of chiffon do not come pouring out of my mouth. When I dress, I don't look like a model out of International Male.
Because of this, I have to come out to people. I have to tell them, "I'm gay," because they assume that I am straight. Every time I come out to somebody, I face being rejected and despised.
By contrast, "flaming" gays don't have to face this. Everyone knows that they're gay, so people who choose to interact with them obviously don't care or accept that they are gay. They don't have to face rejection. For that I am jealous, but I am who I am and make no apologies for it.
You, as someone who is obviously not gay, never have to face this. Specifically, you never have to "come out" to anyone that you are straight. Nor do you ever have to face being hated or rejected because you are straight. Nor do you have to face losing a job or being put in prison becuase you are straight. Nor do you have to advertise to people that you're straight to avoid the possibility of being hated or rejected.
By the way, did you realize that even now, the majority of gay men are in the closet and married to women?
I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
There is a definite pro education theme in Jewish life.
In some Jewish homes on a boys first day of school he is given cakes with bits of hebrew writing done on them in frosting, to assosiate Learning with sweet things.
And yes any well educated Jew should be able to discuss the Torah, and you study it for a lifetime.
Erlang Developer and podcaster
You'd better not use VRML, vi, linux, or a computer for that matter!
I wonder who else was "into" homosexuality, paganism, drugs, and general irreverence.
Such a bad rap these people had...
and they're such horrable people...
--Proud to be a Pagan Programmer!--
"Homophobic" in today's sense doesn't mean afraid of people with homosexual behaviors.. it just means prejudiced against them. Be as overly literal as you want; that's what the word is globally accepted as meaning. If you really take offense, substiture "anti-homosexual" for homophobic. My point is the same: if you say that the homosexual lifestyle is innately harmful then you're displaying a prejudice and are coloring the rest of your argument.
:).
n na-call-it benefits that would be missing otherwise. This has nothing to do with approving or disapproving of the sexual behavior of similarly-gendered parents. They just can't be both genders, sexual behavior aside.
"Prejudice" is an interesting word for a viewpoint. I don't see why it couldn't just as easily be applied to the viewpoint that homosexuality has no effect on the individual at all (a dubious point. If sex had no effect on individuals, we wouldn't be as crazy about it as most of us are
But the main issue I take with the term homophobe -- or even the term "anti-homosexual" -- is that those who use it often seek to erode the distinction between those who would harm homosexuals and those who oppose practicing homosexuality (a distinction I think is real in most 'homophobes' but sadly not in another). It also is a lable that unfairly colors my arguments. See, for example our discussion.
I'm happy to say I am anti-homosexual in the sense that I oppose practicing homosexuality. However, perhaps I should have been more clear in saying this is not my primary reason for thinking gay couples shouldn't be parents. The reasoning flows from the idea that having a female and male parent while growing up (assuming that they're not disfunctional themselves) may provide psychological/spiritual/emotional/whatever-you-wa
Now, there MIGHT be issues involved in the sexual behavior of the couple; but I haven't tried to suss them out, and they're not the essence of my argument. But somehow you assumed that they really came from my opposition to homosexual practices. Which is unfortunate, because we might have actually been able to have a rational discussion about the former point, aside from the fact that neither of us seems to be able to offer more than anecdotal evidence at the moment (it's too bad the studies I've read were paper, not web, and I have no idea how to find the reference at the moment).
I'd like to think that the criteria of psychological health, intelligence according to grades, ability to form friendships and romantic relationships, &c, are good enough.
These are exactly the criteria I was thinking of, though. I admit to having some criteria beyond this, but for the sake of simplicity (having to establish them would take an essay) I've skipped them. They're enough to have a good starter discussion with...
a) Not necessarily 'you' so much as whoever is reading the post. b) Your post certainly said nothing that insinuated that you weren't thinking [that children of homosexual parents will probably have a similar orientation]
"most people probably don't decide their orientation based on how the authority figures in their life told 'em they oughta " were my words. I was thinking parent/guardian when I wrote authority figure; perhaps I was not quite clear enough.
--
Libertarianism is rich wolves and poor sheep playing gambler's ruin for dinner.
Why is it that if my partner and I hold hands, we're "blatantly advertising", but if a heterosexual couple holds hands, you don't think twice?
Why is it that if my partner and I kiss goodbye in front of my office, we're "blatantly advertising", but nobody even notices a het couple doing the same?
Why is it that het couples can make out in bars and get only amused looks from the other patrons, but my partner and I would risk physical violence?
Maybe it's all a matter of perspective? Maybe you see the same action when performed by a het couple vs. a gay couple as somehow different? Isn't that homophobia, albeit a subtle and relatively mild form?
Swallow that, you filthy homophobes! :)
Next time I hear someone go hard on gay people, I will remind them that some gay person is responsible for his/her e-mail delivery.
That'll teach 'em...
--
Slashdot didn't accept your submission? hackerheaven.org will!
Not sure it's specific to the field. Is the proportion more or less than in, say, musicians, biologists, or politicians? Any large group of people will have some number of homosexuals; among intellectuals who become used to speaking their minds, maybe a larger number will be "out".
Continuing in the same vein, take the fact that Lynn Conway, one of the true pioneers in computing, had gender reassignment. (She's probably best known as co-author of "Introduction to VLSI systems".) Is that higher or lower than other fields? Does it say anything about computer scientists or engineers in general? I don't think so.
Statistics of homosexuality across different fields may be interesting, but wouldn't say anything profound.I find that statement very reasable. If you are gay man who wants to date you should go where there are other gay men. Similarly for years I had problems dating because I kept hanging out in places where there are not many Jewish women. You can't find someone who is not there you know.
Erlang Developer and podcaster
How about the fact that silence encourages persecution and discrimination.
So does endless annoyance.....
How about the fact that unless people realize that 1 in 10 are gay, they'll consider it freakish.
yeh, right.The kinsey's report is way, way, off. If you belived that number, you'd also find out that in the first 10,000 histories, %15 were convicted sex offenders and %12 were prostitutes.
I'll admit that it's tacky, but I'll continue to be loud and proud for as long as neccesary.
Amber Yuan 2k A.D
"and dear god does this website suck now." -- CmdrTaco
I think there are just as many gay people in whatever profession, but you're more likely to come out if you're in computing, because it's less likely to hurt your career.
And ISTR the "Stanford guy" is Paul Asente, who was once a regular poster to soc.motss (and may still be for all I know). I once asked him in email "is X your fault?" He replied "not entirely"
--
Xenu loves you!
This does NOT mean that gay men with straight friends will fall in love with them.
Nothing says they will: but they might. Why not? Who dictates who you may or may not fall in love with. My being a heterosexual man does not mean I'm unable / forbidden from falling in love with a lesbian after all. It merely means that love is likely to remain unrequited -- unrequited love is pretty common.
(disclaimer: I am not in love with a lesbian at this point.)
--
Since you were asking, here are some gay taxes:
1) Estate tax. Straight married couples can pass
their estates to their surviving spouses tax
free. Same-sex partners get taxed heavily by this.
2) Straight married couples can put each other
on employer health insurance plans without getting
taxed. If my partner puts me on his insurance plan
(if it is even possible), the !#$% federal
goverment will consider it taxable income and I
would have to pay tax on it.
Gay men, in large numbers (to make a gross generalization), tend to be drawn to fairly progressive urban environments (ever heard of a large gay community in someplace like Topeka Kansas?). So, in fact, are the type of people who want to work at new-economy companies. Thus having a strong gay community becomes a reliable proxy for all the other things in an urban centre which make it desirable for young professions to reside, not the cause of that. In fact, you could replace any number of things with gay-tolerance as the proxy (such as immigrant populations).
Which means that if you're setting up a company in an area which is gay-tolerant, you're probably going to end up employing some.
I don't think gay couples should be raising kids.
I used to think this way. My reasoning was that a child should be exposed to role models of both genders. But after thinking about it I realized that having gay parents doesn't necessarily mean you don't get to have those role models.
In fact, having straight parents doesn't necessarily mean you get good role models either. And many children are raised by single parents.
I still believe that a child should spend time with a variety of people, and have role models of both genders. But I believe it is unfair to say that just because parents are gay (or single for that matter) that they will not raise a child properly. I don't think there is a correlation.
...following yours is trolling, "Why do gay people always have to advertise that they're gay?"
Me, I had no idea either that Allman is gay. I guess he's the kind of professional that feels we should all be concentrating on what kind of code the other person writes rather than the gender that other person is dating.
You cannot apply a technological solution to a sociological problem. (Edwards' Law)
There are many religions in the world. The dominant ones are the ones that have historically been the most brutal, and the ones with the most viral marketing mechanisms, such as sending missionaries around the world to destroy native cultures wherever they may be found. Christianity, of course, is number one amongst these.
If you claim that your particular interpretations of your god's commandments are the only correct ones, you are guilty of incredible hubris even within your own religion. You should consider the effect that might have on your alleged immortal soul.
For the record, I don't do drugs, am not pagan or gay. You might judge me as irreverent, but what I really am is sick of the hypocrisy of those who use religion as a weapon against everything they happen not to like or be comfortable with. The things you're not comfortable with may make you sad to be a programmer, but your attitude makes me sad to be a human being.
Many thanks for posting this, Slashdot!
I think you`ve got the wrong website.
Try this one:
http://www.satan2000.com/christians/whysuck.htm
Pulled it from Matthew Ridley's The Red Queen.
It's got decent footnotes, and I'm sure he gives a source, but I'm not going to go digging.
--Shoeboy
Hey, I've got nothing against straight people, as long as they act gay in public.
From Eric Allman: /. story.
I got a counselor who said "as long as you hang out with straight men, you'll be falling in love with straight men -- go to the Berkeley Gay Mens' Raps.
This does NOT mean that gay men with straight friends will fall in love with them. I know it reads that way on first glance, but I'm sure that's not what Eric meant. Rather, it means that if you are exclusively surrounding yourself with straight men, you'll fall in love with one because you won't have any other emotional outlet.
As a practicing homosexual, I can assure you that I don't get attatched to straight boys - in fact, I'm more often attracted to somewhat butch lesbians than I am to straight boys.
Other than that, it was a great article, and I'm delighted to see two such impressive gay role models in a front page
--Shoeboy
That is pretty funny. :-) I'd always heard that the Universal Indicator (chemistry in-joke) for system admins was: bearded, with glasses and suspenders. But I think that maybe the suspenders have gone out of style. (On gender/orientation, ~50% of the really good sysadmins I've worked with were women. (yes, 50% chance chromosomally, but that's in the general population, in the tech field it seems women are rarer).)
--
Fuck Censorship.
News for Geeks in Austin, TX
I have always thought that people can do more to benifit the world by raising children with values and by mentoring young people than by anything else.
I am looking forward to the day (G-d willing) when I will be a parent. And can have the joy and stress that goes with it.
Erlang Developer and podcaster
Alan Turing, one of the founders of computer science; The Stanford guy who wrote the prototype for XWindows and Motif; The founder of one of two top desktop publishing companies and so on ...
A recent demographic study found a very high
correlation of gay meccas with high tech centers.
Is this not really true? Or something "in the air" in central California that puts a San Francisco and Silicon Valley next to each other?
Some about the gay male mind that makes sense of digitals patterns more easily?
I could just as well say you are guilty of hubris in thinking that the only true religion is no religion, or relative religion, or agnosticism, or whatever.
I don't claim to have knowledge of the only true religion. That's my point.
What I am saying is that the attitude which says "my interpretation of my religion is the only correct one, and allows me to judge everyone else" is what is really sad. I'm not saying that there is no religion, only that it is very difficult to be sure that everything that any individual happens to believe about their religion is true. As far as I know, "faith" is the only basis on which we can do so. However, different people's faith leads them in different directions. Different branches of the same church reach different conclusions for the same reasons. I know someone who was married by a gay Anglican priest. The Anglican church has been ordaining gay clergy, male and female, for over twenty years. Do you believe the entire Anglican church is in error, along with every other church which doesn't conform to your beliefs? If you believe that your faith makes you correct, and everyone who disagrees with you wrong, that's hubris.
It is no less hubris to claim there is one true God than it is to claim that declaring so is hubris itself
Again, that's not what I'm saying. You are welcome to believe, and declare your belief, in one true God. I wouldn't dream of arguing with your belief. Within reason, you're also welcome to try to convince others to believe as you do. The hubris is in believing that your personal interpretation of your God's commandments is correct in all respects, and then applying that standard to others who do not share your particular beliefs.
Reasonable discussion of these issues is a good thing - after all, we necessarily discuss them all the time in the political arena, for example. But your original statement:
As for abortion, I consider it a very difficult issue. I certainly don't consider opposing it to be intolerant or unacceptable, in itself. However, I consider murdering adults as a form of protest against abortion to be unacceptable. But I also recognize that these are, in effect, my opinions, regardless of how many religions might back me up on it. It would be wonderful if we could all have an absolute knowledge of right and wrong. But we don't, and pretending and acting as if we do isn't going to make things any better.
Well, that would certainly be undeserved here. The article appeared on gayteenresources.org, you would expect at least some of the people there to admit they are gay!
This isn't going to play well here, but I'm going to say it anyway:
I don't think gay couples should be raising kids.
(Hold on there, cowboy, before you pull out the guns, wait until the end of the post to shoot, thanks).
This isn't out of sheer 'homophobia' -- though I do believe that homosexual behavior is inherently harmful to the individuals involved. But most people probably don't decide their orientation based on how the authority figures in their life told 'em they oughta (behavior, maybe, but probably not orientation).
Nor do I think that homosexuality strictly means promiscuity anymore than heterosexuality means stable monogamy.
Nope, I'm just a person who thinks that perhaps the male-female pair/combo might contribute something significant to breeding, raising, and socializing a new human being BEYOND just the necessary exchange of complementary material. That having a good female mother and a good male father will get people farther along to being well-adjusted than not.
And please: I'm willing to concede that homosexual couples can be stable and caring --- so don't bring up the "better them than the abusive/f*d up straight people." Yes, that's true: much better for a kid to be raised outside of the traditional/natural model than abused. But I think it's strange that whenever I talk about this, stable gay couples get compared to straight people who make Elizabeth Taylor look monogamous. Stable, good straight couples looking to adopt DO exist. My parents -- not always the best role models for a relationship -- did a decent job. Many of my friends were luckier. All things being equal, it's probably better to be raised by straight parents.
Flame away.
--
Libertarianism is rich wolves and poor sheep playing gambler's ruin for dinner.
"When you stare at a pretty woman (I'm assuming you're a straight guy) you're advertising that you're straight."
Most likely. Not necessarily, though. There are more reasons to stare at a woman than wanting to jump her.
"When you file for a wedding license you're telling your local govt that you're straight."
Not around here. They're fighting hard for--and winning--the right for gay couples to legally marry.
"When you wear a wedding ring in public, you're advertising that you're straight."
Utter nonsense! With a wedding ring, you're advertising nothing more than the fact that you're married--in your own heart and mind. I know of a bunch of gay couples that wear each other's rings. In fact, most of my gay friends do. Hmmm, must mean we're all getting old and settling down. :-)
At any rate, these points (even if they were true, which they're not) do not address the original poster's point. Wearing a ring is not the same as parading down a street, carrying a sign. Holding hands is not the same as starting every post to a technical forum with, "as a monogamous gay man..." Yes, I've seen it, although thankfully not on /.
The point is that while I don't hide my sexuality, and don't think that anyone should have to, I also don't push my sexuality as an issue on every topic I discuss. I strongly suspect (can't assume for sure) that the original poster is annoyed by these people, rather than all gays. As a point of fact, it's not just gays that suffer this failing. There are leather fetishists who push their agenda just as hard in just as inappropriate places, and even straight vanilla types who do the same. Usually they're the redneck jerks or the nymphomaniacs who come to work and tell you all about the great sex they had last night.
The point is that I don't give a rat's ass about whether you're gay or not. If you are (and again, if you're not), then introduce me to your partner. Don't presume that it's crucial to your abilities and insights as a computer geek (my field--this is presuming you'd be a coworker), and has to be hammered home at every possible juncture.
"People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
OK for the record, I live in Canada. I realise things are different (generally worse) south of the border. You have my sympathy.
Secondly, I'd ask for one careful distinction: You said, "...people seem to assume that everyone is straight, or should be straight..." Those are two VERY different assumptions, and shouldn't be casually lumped together.
Now, "When me and my bf hold hands or display affection in public, we get stared at like freaks..." I know. This is just wrong, and it bugs the hell out of me. Personally, I cheer quietly when I see a gay or lesbian couple holding hands in public, not showing off but just not caring. It makes me think that we're getting closer to a just society. I don't, however, cheer at seeing bumper stickers on work cubicles that say, "A queer works here!" It would be just as inappropriate for me to put up a sign saying, "Ain't it great to be straight?"
So I'll accuse THOSE people (and only them) of flaunting it, but not those who simply try to ignore the stupidity of homophobic society. Deal?
:-)
"People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
It was worse than that. He didn't kill himself over shame, but over persecution. The government forced him to take estrogen and other drugs to reduce his sex drive, which made him miserable. Interestingly, he also did it in such a way that his mother could believe it was an accident - he wanted to spare her the shame.
There's no music specifically mentioning Alan Turing (as compared to about 20 songs mentioning Margaret Thatcher), but when I think of him, I think of this:
"And when the clergy take a vote all the gays
will pay again / 'Cause there's more than one kind of criminal white collar." --The Indigo Girls, "Trouble"
Become a FSF associate member before the low #s are used