I didn't say what the law is now, I said what it should be. It just makes since. You may be an ignorant little jerk who hates blacks, ect. but that’s your problem. It's the idea of personal freedom. You have the freedom to do what you want with what you own, and say what you want. I wouldn't like to hire a racist snot who goes on anti-black parades on his off days. If I own a business I should be able to hire who ever I want, even if I'm a stupid bigot. That’s just how freedom works. Every one is entitled to their own opinion be it good or bad.

They're full of it. Surveys have placed between 2-3% and 10% of people being homosexual, but these studies themselves are questionable in their reliability (or so according to my Human Sexuality course). There's also the question of what makes a person truly homosexual -- by the secular definition of the word, engaging in homosexual acts does not solely make you a homosexual. You must feel actual emotional and physical attraction to the opposite sex.



The main crippling point of this demonstration is its extremely short duration. No company is going to note a single-day drop, assuming that this gets enough people to even cause a marginal drop. They'll simply dismiss it as a "slow day."

Well, they've had 15,000 pledges so far. I don't know if that's enough or not.

I think maybe tomorrow I'll email them and pass some of your concerns along.

Ok so you support freedom of speech, but what about anti-discrimination laws? It is illigal for an employer to not hire (or fire) an employee on the basis of race, gender, pregnancy, national origin, religion, disability or age. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, yes, but that doesnt give you the right to discriminate against them.

It's called an "at-will employee", that is, and employee at the will of the employer. You can fire anyone, anytime, for whatever reason, provided it isn't discriminatory (I fire you because you're black/gay/pregnant/republican/ugly). Unless you have signed a contract at your job, stating explicitly that you are not an at will employee, you can be terminated, any time, without any if's, and's, or but's.

You take things far too literally. Even if I spent more money that day it would do nothing to hurt homosexuals just as not spending money that day is going to do anything to hurt whoever the heck they think it is that is oppressing them. If they really wanted to effect some change they would permanently boycott whatever corporation or entity they're upset with.

The website turned me off, though, because it's claiming something about how they're being denied thousands of rights. That's simply idiotic. Not being granted special rights does not equal being denied rights.

I told my gay friend I'd do it.

Ahahahahah! Oh that's so wrong.

In the first part of my post you'll notice that I'm saying how things should be- not how they are. As long as thier not actually taking from them it's not any of the governments buisness. You can't force people to change thier world view.

wtf...

i am going to congratulate him for not turning this into a flame war about homosexuality.

Not even enough for the economists to notice the difference. 15000 people out of a population of 260 some odd million won't do a single thing.

Do you have any idea how statistics work?

You can't just pick 10 people from your family. You can't say "oh," and then pick 25 people from your family and expect it to work.

You have to walk into the mall, and count every seventh person who walks by you at the enterance. That would be a more accurate representation.

Granted, that won't mean that one of those people will be gay. If tetris has taught me anything, it's that while there is a 1/6 chance you'll get <peice>, it's more likely that you'll get it 30 pieces later, than six pieces later.

Especially if that's the piece you want most!

Demographics would also have to be taken into account. For example, I live near Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota; a fairly liberal (but pretty moderate) place. I'm sure there are more gay people here than a place in the bible belt.

About the thousands of rights: I did a google search and found nowhere that listed them, but a lot of places that referenced it, even anti-SSM sites.
I'm thinking there are so many just because the law is so complicated to account for so many situations.

"special" rights such as visiting one's partner in the hospital? Or even being allowed to know where they're buried?

There was a case where the estranged family (because he was gay) of some guy just came in and blocked his partner from visiting him in hospital, and then when he died, didn't tell the partner where he was going to be buried.

I don't see how that has anything to do with "gay rights". He was not prevented from anything by an institution or government because of his sexual preference. He was prevented because the family did not consent to his visiting or knowledge of the burial site.

Had the two partners in question been married, the law would have required that the former person be allowed to visit their spouse in the hospital, or know where they were burried. That's why the GLBT community is very steamed over the amendment; everyone currently needs marriage to guaruntee those rights.

Furthermore, for heterosexual people like the majority of us are, such an Amendment is a bad thing, for it means that we won't have S*** for rights in our relationships until we marry. Too many people don't understand that there's more difference between a civil union and a marriage than the name. Marriage is needed for partners to have rights in regarding each other, else the other's family has all the control, even if the person in question hated their family, and wanted nothign to do with them.

I present the following scenario: a heterosexual couple have been together for a long time, though they have not married, for some reason or other. (This is actually more common than some of you might claim.) Both are distanced from their respective families (they no longer contact them, because neither side likes the other person's partner), and have agreed to sped their entire lives together. However, one of the two falls very ill, and is hospitalized. When their respective family finds out, they prohibit the other from seeing their partner. By law, they are fully permitted to do this, because they are not married; marriage is the only true legal bind between a couple.

Because the law prevents them from being married, which would have allowed them access.

I dont see how this is such a difficult concept to grasp. These people love each other and want to be able to enjoy the legal protection that heterosexual couples enjoy. It's not hurting heterosexuals at all.

I also dont see this boycott working at all. If you notice, they havent even raised half of what they need for the adverts. But I'll still withdraw $80 just to have $80.

Case in point, statistics obviously don't work, and even if they did, it's still a lie.

Even then, it's extremely biased, as you're only sampling people from one region.

The problem with determining what percentage of people are homosexual is that a number of the people who go to various gay bars and "clubs" (I'm not sure getting into the specifics of those places is all too appropriate for Massassi) are actually heterosexual men married to heterosexual women (yes, by the secular definition of the word, they are still heterosexual, as they feel no emotional attraction to members of their sex).

Then you've got men who serve long-term on naval vessels (submarines, etc.) who will engage in homosexual activities simply due to the lack of women present for such long time. Now, by no means does this mean that all naval men engage in this, or that a majority of naval men engage in this. However, it does happen.

In addition, there's controversy over what constitutes a homosexual act. I won't go into specifics of anything, but what some people consider completely heterosexual are considered completely homosexual by others.

Thus, you can rest assured that, if anyone tries to tell you, "[x] percent of people are gay," they're full of it, or whoever told them that is full of it, because no one knows due to the incredible subjectivity of the topic being discussed and observed.

Please tell me that this thread hasn't decended into a flame war about methods of taking statistics.

Mikus has apparently just completely obliterated the entire field of statistics.

Frankly, I can't wait to see what he's gonna make redundant next; perhaps calculus. Calculus has always annoyed me.

Well, he wouldn't have to make you redundant, because YOU ALREADY ARE!!!
HA HA HA HA HA!!!

Just kidding, Matt. You know I love you and secretly watch you through your bedroom window every night even though it's extremely expensive and time consuming to fly back and forth from Australia every day.

I'm not even sure if you could... it might take more than 12 hours to get here, and more than 12 hours to fly back.

Unless there's some Date Line trickery involved. Tricky thing.

I will even bend the laws of time for you!
Yeah, I think the date line thing has something to do with it too. I still don't understand completey how time works between here and there.