Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Links

Interview With Eric Allman And Kirk McKusick 207

Posted by AilleCat
from the out-and-about dept.
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?")."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Interview with Eric Allman and Kirk McKusick

Comments Filter:
  • Isn't your argument "I want to see human reproduction in my grocery store"? I mean, sure, if that's your thing, go for it.

    But I'd rather not see *anyone* trying to conceive in my local market. Just not what I'm there for.

  • and Alan Turing, of course. He's pretty much responsible for modern computing.

    Don Negro

  • by fhwang (90412) on Tuesday February 06, 2001 @06:21AM (#452876) Homepage
    You could look at it through the Anti-Censorware Proxy [978.org]. That should help. Or, maybe it'd work to just look at it using the IP address [209.15.8.89] instead of the domain name.
  • Thats the funniest thing I have heard all day...


    Fight censors!
  • Why do gay people always have to blatantly advertise the fact that they are gay?

    Nice troll, AC!

  • This discussion is getting a little off topic, but I think there are several flaws in your argument that need addressing. I may be misunderstanding you, but...

    Children need fix points in their evolvement (mostly to overcome them later). If you have more than one educator, you see variation, they can control each other, they can spend more time with the spawnling...

    That's an argument that children need marriage (or at least a stable home life), not that marriage needs children.

    Being married without children is far too often a material thing, or an overheated decision (even far too often with children).

    You say that marriages both with and without children can be either a "material thing" or not. And it's possible for all I know that there's more incidence of the marriage being "a material thing" without children than with; that's hardly enough of an absolute to require the dissolution of all childless marriages, as you recommended earlier in the thread.

    I'm not sure how the "overheated decision" comes into it, since that concerns the way people decide to begin a marriage, rather than whether or not to have children.

    If you marry, and you don't want children with you partner, then he's just not worth marriage (to you).

    This is known as "begging the question". You have assumed what you set out to prove-- that the point of marriage is to provide a stable environment for children.

    Then you only want to share his company and/or his property. And for this purposes are better (less restricting and more honest) ways.

    And why is wanting to share someone's company a lesser goal than wanting to share in parenthood with them? (Again, you beg the question with "more honest", implying that a marriage formed for the purpose of mutual edification, support, help and comfort-- which happens to be childless-- is somehow a dishonest abuse of the concept of marriage.)

    M

  • I suspect that the actual explanation is much simpler. There is a phenonmenon observed by those in the paranormal field whose name escapes me. Basically, people remember the "hits" and forget the "misses". Therefore, they see patterns which don't exist because they don't notice the data that contradicts their theory. If you assume that a certain portion of our population is gay, and that a certain portion of our population works in IT, it would follow that a certain portion works in IT and is gay. However, it's still somewhat unusual for public figures to be openly gay, so you tend to remember it. I suspect that you've just listed every single gay computer innovator that you could think of. Not so many, is it? A study of homosexuality in the IT industry would probably yield numbers consistent with other fields in that socio/economic stratum.
  • :-) We bought a puppy recently because sge rationalized that her biological clock was ticking so loudly that it was drowning out her thought process. The puppy quitened the clock down...
  • 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
  • by Anonymous Coward
    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.
  • OK, first off. Judging their lifestyle was *not* the point of the interview.

    I'll give you this, children could probably do best by having both male and female role models. But then, so many children are being raised in single parents homes anymore, I don't think it's much different.

    It's kind of a big deal when gay couples are allowed to adopt. Courts have been known to take children out of homes with same-sex parents. I believe that homosexuals should have the same basic rights as any other human being. Go read "Heather has Two Mommies" by Leslea Newman :P

    So, let's get back on topic...

  • .. 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.
  • Linus Benedict Torvalds is Swedish-speaking Finn, not "Sweede" (and I am Finnish-speaking Finn). Finns live in Finland. Swedes live in Sweden.
  • When you ask "who cares?" you are, tacitly, making a claim that you are indifferent. The tone of your post, however, contradicts this. Apparently you care, or you would not have been motivated to express yourself in this way.

    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.

  • This isn't out of sheer 'homophobia' -- though I do believe that homosexual behavior is inherently harmful to the individuals involved.

    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.

  • Well, consider that in a committed homosexual relationship, both partners have to really want the child-- there are no 'accidental' children. When a gay/lesbian couple decides to have a kid, they know they're in it for the long haul.

    Compare this to single parenting- there you only have one person, of one gender, raising the child or children. With a homosexual couple, at least there's another person to help out, even if they are the same gender as the other parent.

    Single parenting is relatively acceptable in the U.S. these days; is there any situation where two stable parents instead of one single parent would be a bad thing? "All things being equal", as you said, shouldn't it then be better to be raised by a gay/lesbian couple than by a single parent?

    I am very grateful to my straight parents for the way they brought me up. And I'm straight too. But I don't see their heterosexual relationship as having anything to do with my well-being. The only thing that mattered was that they loved me and took care of me.

  • Seeing as you're gay, let me ask you a question:

    Aren't you fscking sick of seeing so many gay people paraded around on TV? I mean, it's like a fad now. It started with Will and Grace, which was a shallow and horrendously unfunny show to begin with. Now every sitcom has to have some fricken gay angle to it. Take "Normal Ohio". What else was this other than an attempt at taking a tired old sitcom star, and "magically" creating a successful sitcom by making his character implausibly gay? I mean, who really thinks John Goodman plays a convincing gay person? It's just painful.

    I have nothing whatsoever against homosexuality, but I think people are started to feel "gay fatigue" [plastic.com].
  • 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.

    Hm, by the same token, I should trumpet the fact that I'm Roman Catholic.

    Othersize, my silence would encourage religious persecution and discrimination.
    Unless people realize that 1 in 6 are Catholic, they'll consider it freakish.

    -Sean (Catholic and proud of it)
    -Sean

  • This has got to be the deepest and most intense thread I have ever read on Slashdot. It is interesting to absorb and analyze everyone's angles, thoughts and feelings on this subject.

    Wow. I've never seen people post so crazily and feverishly! Good job Slashdot!

    -Pat

  • Use the ip address:
    PING www.gayteenresources.org (209.15.8.89): 56 data bytes
    64 bytes from 209.15.8.89: icmp_seq=0 ttl=241 time=51.983 ms

    209.15.8.89 [209.15.8.89]

  • But should you be? You should have empathy for people being persecuted, but you don't. Look at your history.

    I don't follow this viewpoint. Because I'm Catholic, I must agree with everything that the Catholic Church has done throughout history? Obviously, that's ludicrous.

    Just because I am Catholic doesn't mean that I don't care about people being persecuted. In fact, it's just the opposite.

    A lot of people don't really understand the Church's position on homosexuality. It starts with the idea that our bodies and our sexuality are gifts from God. If you don't believe in this statement, skip the rest of this post.

    With that in mind, God has certain ways that He teaches that we should use this gift. The use of our sexuality should only be in a committed marriage. The teaching is not that all sex should be for creating children. But all sexual acts should be open to the gift of life.

    Homosexual sexual acts aren't open to that gift of life. Same with using condoms in heterosexual sex. Same with a lot of things.

    Oh, and this is really important, no one has the right to judge a homosexual as being fundamentally wrong or flawed. Anyone who does so is going against what God teaches. Only God can judge other people. But we are called upon to judge actions. We're allowed (and encouraged, actually) to judge one another's actions only.

    At least the gays aren't on a witch hunt for catholics.

    You sure about that? You should hear a lot of the things that gays have to say about Catholics and Christianity in general. That's part of the persecution of religion that I'm talking about.

    -Sean
    -Sean

  • by ooze (307871)
    Maybe I'm the only one and still very immature, but the interview reminds me of something. My understanding of a marriage is, that it is the obligation to raise children. Nothing more, nothing less. They can be the own ones or be adopted, but a marriage without children (after some time) should be splitted.
  • David B. Barrett's World Christian Encyclopedia (1994 update) gives an oft-cited figure of 1.9 billion Christians (or about 33% of the world population), and has projected that by the year 2000 there will be 2.1 billion Christians in the world.

    From Encyclopedia Britannica around 1995:

    Major Traditional Branches of Christianity
    Branch and Number of Adherents

    • Roman Catholic: 968,000,000
    • Protestant: 395,867,000
    • Other Christians: 275,583,000
    • Orthodox: 217,948,000
    • Anglicans: 70,530,000
    With about 6 billion people in the world, looks like 1 in 6 to me.

    -Sean
    -Sean

  • 1) Estate tax. Straight married couples can pass their estates to their surviving spouses tax free. Same-sex partners get taxed heavily by this.

    Well, estate taxes aren't exactly fair anywhere. I wasn't even aware that people could pass estates to spouses without being taxed. I know that you have to jump through incredible numbers of hoops to pass your estate to the next generation without getting taxed into oblivion. My thought would be that it gets taxed as you earn it, the government should keep their goddamned hands off of it unless you "spend" it on something. Why the government has the right to tax you at all just because a family member died is completely beyond my comprehension to understand.

    Just out of curiosity, is this also true in states where same-sex marriage is allowed? I thought that once a couple was married (same-sex or not) all the laws were equal regardless of the 'type' of marriage.
    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.

    Are you positive on that one? Again, I think in states where same-sex marriage is allowed the same laws/rules apply to same-sex couple as apply to opposite sex couples.

    Of course, if you aren't married to or won't marry your same-sex partner than I think all of this is moot as these "benefits" aren't available to same-sex couples that aren't married either. But if you live in a state that doesn't allow same-sex marriages, then I feel for you. I feel it should be allowed in all states. But, most straight people seem to disagree with me on that. I guess that's another reason I occasionally get mistaken for a gay man, I take the 'wrong' side on a lot of issues like that.

  • It seems that real geeks don't mind what you believe so long as you believe it for the right reasons.
    But believing implies faith, and as an atheist I don't believe in anything so by definition I have no faith. Your statement excludes atheists and should probably should have said "geeks don't mind what you believe or do not believe...".

    It always cracks me up when religionists tell me that atheism is my faith, because that it is what I "believe" in. It try to tell them "No, I don't believe so I have no faith" but if it gives their small minds some measure of comfort to believe that atheism is my "faith" I won't waste time arguing with them.

    Anyway, believing in something for the "right reasons" is a slippery slope. I'm sure Adolf Hitler (who was a religionist) thought he was killing Jews/Gays/Gypsies/etc. for the "right reasons".
    (A geek would probably find sheep-like following of religion just as exasperating as sheep-like atheism.)
    There is no such thing as "sheep-like" atheism. First of all, there are no large masses of atheists (in numbers, we more like sheepdogs than sheep). Secondly, there are no atheist prophets advocating atheism to the masses of those who believe in "God" (the term sheep fits here). Thirdly, you don't have to join an organization of like-minded individuals (a herd of sheep) when you become an atheist.

    Becoming an atheist is an individual decision. Having atheist parents does not guarantee atheist children, just like having religionist parents will not guarantee the children will believe in "God".

    I believe that Karl Marx's quote "religion is the opiate of the masses" is true. I did not say "that statement is true, therefore I am an atheist" which would be sheep-like behavior. Instead I became an atheist and then said "I am an atheist so that statement is true." It is a pretty subtle distinction...
    The geek community is a wonderful thing.
    Yes it is, but geeks must be careful not to slip into unconscious stereotypes which are really only the substitution of one prejudice for another.
    --
    You think being a MIB is all voodoo mind control? You should see the paperwork!
  • But believing implies faith, and as an atheist I don't believe in anything so by definition I have no faith. Your statement excludes atheists and should probably should have said "geeks don't mind what you believe or do not believe...".

    Fair enough.

    There is no such thing as "sheep-like" atheism.

    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.

    First of all, there are no large masses of atheists (in numbers, we more like sheepdogs than sheep).

    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.

    Secondly, there are no atheist prophets advocating atheism to the masses of those who believe in "God" (the term sheep fits here).

    You'd be surprised. I'm the moderator of a religious Usenet newsgroup, and we see such people all the time.

    Thirdly, you don't have to join an organization of like-minded individuals (a herd of sheep) when you become an atheist.

    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.

    Becoming an atheist is an individual decision. Having atheist parents does not guarantee atheist children, just like having religionist parents will not guarantee the children will believe in "God".

    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.

    I believe that Karl Marx's quote "religion is the opiate of the masses" is true.

    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.

  • Similarly for years I had problems dating because I kept hanging out in places where there are not many Jewish women.

    Just out of curiosity, where DO you go to find Jewish women? (I'm not Jewish, I'm just curious) I can't think of a place where Jewish women tend to congregate.

    Of course, the synagogue, but are there Jewish bars like there are gay bars or biker bars or redneck bars?

  • Hmm...
    There are statistics that contradict each other.
    First off homosexual men tend to be less skilled at the sorts of mathematics and abstract reasoning that computer science requires.
    Secondly, gay men are more likely to be left handed.
    Thirdly, left handers tend to be more skilled at the sorts of mathematics and abstract reasoning that computer science requires.
    So it may be that like Alan Turing and myself, Eric and Kirk are left handed.
    Most likely though, it's that statistics measure means and modes, when it comes to people these means and modes aren't very strong ones.
    No matter what the statistics say, ~ half the people measured are greater than the mean. By definition. So there's room for excellence for all types of people, just not all people.
    --Shoeboy
  • >Am I afraid of people with homosexual behaviors?
    >Hardly. Am I "afraid" of what homosexualbehavior does to people?
    This sounds like homophobia to me.
    Homosexual behaviour doesn't "do" anything to people. I happen to be gay and I view it as just another attribute, like having green eyes or black hair.
    There are lots of straight AND gay people that do lots of different things not because they are gay or straight but because that's the kind of person they are. Their sexual orientation has nothing to do with that behaviour.
  • 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.
  • Straights get tax breaks...

    The rest of your post I will agree with, but not this one. Not in the slightest.

    Have you ever checked out the tax laws as they apply to married couples? This is the first year that I filed as a married person and I can honestly say that (since gay marriage is not yet allowed in my state) gays are not treated unfairly when it comes to taxes. There are a lot of ways they are treated unfairly, and I think that's terrible, but the marriage penalty tax (even though reform is 'underway' and has been for nearly ten years) is still a huge deal to the straight couples that are dumb enough to think that marriage is a good way to save money.

    I'm a straight guy, but I have had a few openly gay friends (male and female). I've often been mistaken for gay because I am somewhat effeminate in some ways, and I usually see that as a good thing. I'd rather be seen as a feminine man than be one of the gay bashers. (Just to give you an idea where I'm coming from.) Anyway, unless there is some "GAY" tax that I'm not aware of, I don't quite see how being straight earns me any extra tax breaks. At least, not until we have kids (and in states where same-sex marriage is allowed it is usually possible for same-sex couples to adopt once they are married, so that same tax-break should apply). Have I missed something here?

  • by Anonymous Coward
    Brothers and Sisters, need we anymore proof of the horrors of Satan's ways? Next time you see someone offering to install BSD on a Christian's computer system, be sure to tell them about the depraved Satan worshipers and perverts behind it. Show them this article. Show them the images of Satan which are trademarked symbols of BSD. Then prayerfully remove BSD from all Christian computers. BSD is another one of Satan's ways of tricking the innocent into worshiping him and supporting his anti-God, anti-family agenda.
  • My guess is that no higher a percentage of computer scientists are gay than is true for the general population, but rather, there's simply a higher percentage who are *openly* gay. The culture of high-tech is one of openness, one where people question authority rather than just accepting "X is bad", where individial merit as a hacker matters more than who you sleep with. Geeks are more willing to go their own route rather than blindly follow the path they're "supposed" to.

    If you look deeper, you'll probably find similar correlations between tech centers and BDSm and polyamory. Not because theres's some innate relation between high tech and alternative sexuality, just because the same sort of open mindset can lead someone to each.

    And for what it's worth, I'm in a long-term monogamous hetero relationship. I have no interest in guys whatsoever. But I many friends who are, and I'm totally supportive of them. One of the best things about living in CA is the open environment for people of *all* walks of life. :-)

  • I think this sould be modded up +5 for humor... It is the most fucking hilarious troll I've read in my entire life.. OMG OMG.. I'm choking here!
  • I'm not embarking down any road leading to bloodbaths. Stating that men having sex with men, or women women, is wrong is not equivalent to killing people, nor does it lead to killing people. In fact, saying certain things are wicked can acutally save many people; for instance, if you state that having abortions is wickedness, some people may agree and choose not to have them. Thus, lives are saved.

    I would propose that choosing to ignore evil is a far more dangerous road than denouncing it. Had more people denounced American Settlers as evil, many Indian lives could have been saved, for instance.

    But at least phrasing the party line gets you mod points. I'm not afraid to say something different, though.

  • by ard (115977) on Tuesday February 06, 2001 @06:04AM (#452909)
    does anyone else but me that have problems with accessing the site? Our filtering software does not like the domain name :)

    Thank you C*ber P*trol!

  • My point was that if same-sex parents give more support to a child than a single parents household, which is quite typical in today's society, why deprive the same-sex couple of adopting a child who needs and wants a good home.

    But again, this wasn't the point of the damn article/interview.

  • 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.
  • Well-spotted -- it is indeed Irish for "kiss my ass".
  • I don't have to live this way, I choose to.
  • For some reason that I still don't understand people from varius minorites tend to do very well.

    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 .2% of the world popluation.

    There are a lot of very sucsesful Gay men and women in some fields.

    Diversity is a good thing
  • This is just my own hypothesis, so someone feel free to correct me here. Have you considered the fact that geeks and gays are both shunned by those who don't understand them and both go against social norms without concern of offending the lemming conformists? On top of this, most geeks are really sharp people, not likely to be homophobic, which would create a pleasant environment for everyone involved. I think we straight geeks share more in common with gays, not necessily geek gays, than we reallize at first glance.

    "// this is the most hacked, evil, bastardized thing I've ever seen. kjb"

  • Hey, he can post anon if he wants.
    Although I've been out of the closet IRL for a couple of years, I've maintained a straight persona on /. just because of the advesarial nature of the site.
    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
  • It's because engineers are obsessed with provable truths, and the truth is that it doesn't matter who you love.

  • The people who advertise their homosexuality are by far the most of who you know the homosexuality. People who you don't know of are not gay by assumption. Thus... you think all gay do advertise their preferences.
  • yes i am


    Fight censors!
  • www.safeweb.com
    www.safeweb.co.uk
    www.rewebber.com

    then theres the google cache...
  • 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".
  • Hmmm. A remarkable mixture of stereotypes.

    I mean - does he dress well?
    Can he dance?
    Does he get on well with women?

    Or ... is he the guy who can't even pick up guys??? :-)
  • 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 .2% of the world popluation.

    Heh, this is not surprising. It's not a race thing, it's cultural. From what I've gathered, traditionally Jewish culture tends to encourage scholarship, with prepubescent males being expected to discourse intellectually on the Torah, which, if you look at it is not only a religious text but also a fully codified set of laws both civic and penal, about 5500 years old. It is no wonder that a culture like this will produce more than it's average share of scholars.

    Perhaps other minorities are subject to similar cultural circumstances.

    Mart
  • Some about the gay male mind that makes sense of digitals patterns more easily?

    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.

  • I assume we are talking about the US here.

    There are no states which allow same-sex marriage. It amazes me how many people don't know this. Even Vermont does not allow same-sex marriage.

    Also, if a state does decide to legalize same-sex marriage, the federal government has already passed the Defense of Marriage Act which means that the marriage would not count for federal law (eg federal taxes).


  • 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.

    --
  • 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:

    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. [...] All things being equal, it's probably better to be raised by straight parents.

    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?

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 06, 2001 @08:01AM (#452929)
    It's not Cyber Patrol that blocks it, it's the other product put out by the same company that owns Cyber Patrol (maybe you were confused?). SuperScout [surfcontrol.com] is its name.

    Go to http://categories.surfcontrol.com/test-a-site.asp [surfcontrol.com] and put "www.gayteenresources.org" into the text box. You'll get back this message:

    http://www.gayteenresources.org/ is in our list and categorised as Adult/Sexually Explicit

    Note that if you just type in "gayteenresources.org", which of course is the same flinking IP number, you will be informed that the site is not blocked. I assume this is because filtering software is written by idiots.

  • I, for one, will argue that the average gay male couple will make better parents than the average straight couple.

    Based on your argument, I would have to agree. (I wouldn't have, before today.) However, society isn't quite ready for that yet.

    I've always preached tolerance of other people's views to my kids. Never denigrated people because of their sexuality, and tried to keep their minds open to understanding. (And I'm even a "gun nut"! So, one can preach personal responsibility *and* have an open mind.)

    Kids are under a lot of peer pressure. Image is everything. When we were kids, we would call someone a queer or fag as a derogatory term, no matter whether they were or not. Even though society is supposed to be much more enlightened now, my younger son will derogatorily say "That's so gay!" when it has nothing to do with sexuality.
    If I was gay and in a relationship, my kid would be too embarassed to bring home any friends. I'm not proud of this fact, but I'm sure that it is very common among teenagers. Kids want to fit in.

    It would be a tremendous kid that can ignore peer pressure and be proud enough of their gay parents to bring home their friends.

    This is sad. But it is reality, for now.
  • by Loundry (4143) on Tuesday February 06, 2001 @08:03AM (#452931) Journal
    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'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 [openone.com]
  • "Why do gay people always have to blatantly advertise the fact that they are gay?
    "I am not homophobic BTW, I just don't go around avertising the fact that I am straight."

    Advertising? If you're not routinely advertising the fact that you're straight, then what the hell is this thing you just posted? If you really believe that you do not advertize your straight status, then either a) You are probably gay - deal with it! or, b) You could be straight but organically deficient in some way (pants department) and need medical help or c) You could be extremely repressed and sooner or later you will need psychological help or d) You could be a post-menopausal woman or an impotent old man and again there is some medical help for you.

    Are you really talking about the two men in the article or are you just badly off-topic?
    What about granting an interview to a magazine for gay youth is "Blatantly Advertising" themselves or their sexuality to the world? They were asked by a gay issues magazine to discuss their lives - not limited to but specifically inclusive of the gay parts. What do you want them to do ? Deny that they're gay ? And who is going to pick up that magazine or subscribe to it? Not you, right? Probably gay kids who live in cities big enough to tolerate a gay youth magazine being on the shelves at the bookstore or newsstand. So what's your damage? And for the people who pick up this magazine, are the interviews given by Allman and McKusick advertising or are they the content that interests them into picking up the magazine in the first place? (Now the "content" you're probably thinking of is not going to be in that kind of magazine) And, again, what do you want the two men being interviewed to do? Decline to be interviewed on the grounds that young people might get the crazy idea that there's a world out there for people like them after all? This is not blatant advertising by anybody's standard.(unless your only acceptable standard is total invisibility and what you really want is just for them and all gay people to cause themselves to disappear altogether). So what would be baltant? Blatant Advertising would be, for example, one of them wearing a t-shirt to a computing conference or tradeshow that says "I'd rather be giving head in the park, or shopping...and giving head." I'd call "blatant" something completely out of context and inappropriately personal as it would be for a straight person. Like a straight man wearing a t-shirt to the same conference that said "Linux: greatest invention since pussy!"
    Maybe it's just them that makes you uncomfortable - in which case this thread should be about what is wrong with you. People, whether they're straight or gay, should not hide who they are, nor should they be asked to. I say that confidently because I see that the normal healthy behavior for gay people as well as straight people is that THEY DON'T HIDE. People who are severely repressed, I have observed, generally have all kinds of other problems in their lives, too. In that normal sense we are all advertising fairly constantly who we are and are readiness for amor, sometimes subtly sometimes overtly, and if you don't, then something really is wrong with your glands, or maybe your brain.

    If you find that you are especially sensitive to "gay signals" and feel that some people are radiating them in a concentrated and intense manner in your presence, then you may want to ask yourself why you feel this way.

  • In response to Example 1:, because there is no need for a Straight Pride day. Every day is Straight Pride day. You are accepted as "the norm" by society and don't live with constant harrassment.

    In response to Example 2:, because she had an audience, probably. People take the opportunity to put forward their pet projects, agendas, etc. if they have the opportunity. If she'd been an Open Source fanatic, you'd have had *NO PROBLEM* with her wearing a Tux t-shirt. I'd say it is more an expression of her normalcy than her distinction. Where you see it as her wearing her sexuality blatantly, she probably intends to say, "Look I'm just like everyone else... *AND* I'm gay."
  • Why did Allman create an MTA?

    Because he is aroused by mail delivery :-P

    Sorry, bad joke, back to the cage

  • This is not a flame -- I'll start with that. Your opinion is very well-expressed, and I understand your concerns.

    Having said that, I wonder what your specific concerns might be. That the children might end up gay themselves?

    From my real world experience I can say that I have never seen a child raised by a gay couple turn out to be gay themselves -- I have personally known four same sex couples raising children. These kids were as well adjusted as their peers, if not more so, and actively involved in social lives. What it boils down to is that no parents raise their child to be gay.

    I do see these children face ridicule in school from their peers, the same as children from mixed race parents, other minority children, children from one parent homes, children with limps, children with funny teeth, children with funny hair, children with funny ears ... Not to minimize the grief any child feels when they are teased, but you sense a pattern here?

    Should a heterosexual couple seeking to adopt face preferential treatment over a gay couple? Suprisingly enough, if all things are equal between the two choices, I say yes. Neither couple offers a superior home environment for the child, but what kind of behavior the child may face from adults (well-meaning or otherwise) is a concern.

    Adults are not the peers of children. What they say and do carries extra weight. Authority figures are not seen as teasing. If Children's Services is going to be breathing down the back of the parents, if guidance counselors will be pulling the child into their offices to "talk about their feelings", if adults refuse to let their children play with the "gay kid" then all other things being equal place the child where they will not have to deal with the general ignorance of society.

    On the other hand should gay couples be considered by adoption agencies? Certainly. If a stable couple have extra love they seek to share with a little one, then more power to them. There are locations where children are waiting/have been waiting for years to simply find a loving home.

    If there is an empty home wanting for a child, and an empty child wanting for a home, let them be together.

    Now I can be flamed. :)

    P.S. Before anyone begins associating gays with pedophilia a few years ago I spoke with the gentleman who heads the USDOJ's sex crime statistics gathering group. He informed me that according to their statistics over ninety-five percent of pedophiles who prey on girls and boys are heterosexual. The other five percent are gay males, or female. Draw your own conclusions from the statistics.

  • by lupercalia (310569) on Tuesday February 06, 2001 @06:34AM (#452938)
    I suspect that there is no correlation between homosexuality and high tech. Rather, it is much easier for gays who work in tech to come out than it is for some others.

    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
  • First of all, you're nitpicking over the word "homopobia". The Merriam-Webster On-Line Dictionary gives this definition [...]

    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.

  • 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?
  • 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.
  • You'd better not use VRML, vi, linux, or a computer for that matter!

    I wonder who else was "into" homosexuality [turing.org.uk], paganism [hyperreal.org], drugs [avalanche.nl], and general [spesh.com] irreverence [tbtf.com].

    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.

    "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-wan 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.

    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.



    --
  • by lupercalia (310569) on Tuesday February 06, 2001 @06:41AM (#452967)
    Hmmmm I think you just did! :-)

    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?

  • by CoolVibe (11466) on Tuesday February 06, 2001 @06:42AM (#452969) Journal
    Yeah, I was surprised too. I'm heterosexual, but it's great to see a highly respected geek who is responsible for most of the smtp traffic in the world being so open about his sexual preference.

    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 [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" [amazon.com].) 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.
  • 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 [familyresearchinst.org].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
  • 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"
    --
  • 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.
  • There's a Fast Company article on this. [fastcompany.com]. While it starts out by saying that the whole point is to look for gay centres, (again to get some big press and readership, methinks), the analysis is actually pretty common-sense.

    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.

  • to reitterate you ignore the ideology of the old testament while practicing it's laws?

    or is there a law in the new testament concerning homosexuality...

    I only seem to recall ONE law that came from JC ("love god & love thy neighbor" i.e. just love -- ironically "love is the law" is a basic tennant from someone you probably consider satanic [otohq.org])

    so you can't eat pig's flesh or plant crop in the corners of your field, but it's ok for your wife to have a lesbian affair (nothing in Leviticus about that one!), and it's ok for you to have premarital sex, but a woman deserves death... (much like the "soddomite")

    tell me again, which one of these rules matters?
  • by Dr. Awktagon (233360) on Tuesday February 06, 2001 @08:28AM (#452994) Homepage

    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.

  • by alienmole (15522) on Tuesday February 06, 2001 @06:47AM (#453000)
    You're speaking from the point of view of your religion. Does your God not teach tolerance? I was under the impression that she did.

    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.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 06, 2001 @06:05AM (#453004)
    Whoa... Eric Allman is gay? Wow, kinda nice to know that I'm not the only geek who dates the same gender, ya know?

    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
  • by joenobody (72202) on Tuesday February 06, 2001 @07:12AM (#453033)
    Why do gay people always have to blatantly advertise the fact that they are gay?

    Hey, I've got nothing against straight people, as long as they act gay in public.

  • by Shoeboy (16224) on Tuesday February 06, 2001 @06:09AM (#453039) Homepage
    From Eric Allman:
    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 /. story.
    --Shoeboy
  • On a funny note, the best way I ever came out to someone (other than posting to Slashdot ;-) was when a (straight) friend of mine and I were at dinner and he said, "well, Aaron, all the best sysadmins are fat, bearded and gay. So, I guess 2 out of 3 isn't bad." My reply was simply, "actually, that'd be 3."

    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.
  • 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.
  • by peter303 (12292) on Tuesday February 06, 2001 @06:12AM (#453046)
    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?
  • Certainly tolerance is relative. However, you didn't mention abortion in your list of "wickednesses" in your original message, so I'll postpone dealing with that until the end of this message.

    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:

    So many people in the computer field are involved in such wickedness as homosexuality, paganism, drugs, and general irrevence. It gives the field a bad name and often makes one sad to be a programmer.

    ...in my opinion, reflects a significant degree of intolerance and absolutism, and doesn't seem to be a constructive contribution towards mutual understanding. I understand that your statement reflects your beliefs, but I think you should consider the source of your certainty in your beliefs, and how that reconciles with other people's certainty in theirs.

    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.

  • Being bisexual, and having a lot of friends who are gay or bisexual in this industry, my guess is this: when you're a teen and feeling alienated because football and other "turf war" games don't hold your attention, you find something else to do. For some, it's art. For some it's computers. So, you take this higher-than normal incidence of computer-using gay and bisexual men (gay women seem not to end up as enamoured with computers on the average) and throw them at the college sceene. Obviously they will not be selecting colleges for their sports program. Thus, the technical colleges get a surge in gay and bisexual interest.

    It's only a guess, and I'm not sure that it explains the VERY unusual numbers, nor the fact that there appears to be more gay and bisexual clustering as you move up to the over-achivers in the field.

    On a funny note, the best way I ever came out to someone (other than posting to Slashdot ;-) was when a (straight) friend of mine and I were at dinner and he said, "well, Aaron, all the best sysadmins are fat, bearded and gay. So, I guess 2 out of 3 isn't bad." My reply was simply, "actually, that'd be 3."

    I just waited for a moment as he realized what I'd just said, and we both laughed.
  • 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!
  • Hmm. I don't know if I would totally argue that "thinking outside the box" is valid here. Artists think outside the box. Writers think outside the box. But computer people, on a whole, have to fit and constrain to some box. There is an industry out there, with corporations and such, that like to mold computer people to its shape.

    Nothing against gays or your theory, but I think the answer is much more simpler: there's more men involved with computer science. Even with the transgression over the past few years, something like 80% of computer people are men. Take a look at MIT.

    Like sex bears like sex encounters. I go to Sarah Lawrence College, where the campus is predominantly women (something like 70-80%). Guess how many are lesbians? Yes, it's true, there are a good number who come to Sarah Lawrence knowing it's a "gay school" (I didn't have a clue -- I came here for the writing and to follow some computer science), but there are quite a few freshman convert females (much to the dismay of my straight male brethren).

  • 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.

    --
  • by swordgeek (112599) on Tuesday February 06, 2001 @07:20AM (#453066) Journal

    "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.

  • 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?
    :-)

  • 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"

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 06, @04:00PM EST (#287)

    fuck you kike

    Care to insult me to my face? Or are you so ashamed by your hate that you won't even sign your name?

THEGODDESSOFTHENETHASTWISTINGFINGERSANDHERVOICEISLIKEAJAVELININTHENIGHTDUDE

Working...