Facebook's Gaydar: is it accurate?

Oh, totally. Being a closeted gay man is *exactly* like being a computer engineer. Well, except for that whole same-sex attraction thing. Oh, and the can't get married thing. And, the no equal protection under the law thing. Aside from that it's *precisely* like being a computer engineer.

Wait, what?

Wow, Grant misses the point again.


Maybe this will help...

If you like Anime, there's a good chance that on your social network sites, you'll befriend a lot of Anime fans.

If you like Death Metal, there's a good chance that on your social network sites, you'll befriend a lot of Death Metal fans.

If you like douchbag, there's a good chance that on your social network sites, you'll befriend a lot of douchbags.

And where is this law that says that only straight people can be married? Or that that they don't get 'equal protection under the law'? Do young people get the same type of age discrimination protection that old people do? Or do men with European ancestry get the same gov't grant opportunities that women, or people who do not have a European ancestry?

Please define how 'equal' you are expecting the protection of the law?

The more you troll our comments, the more I just feel sorry for you.

Seriously, good luck with whatever it is that's so deeply and disturbingly wrong with you.

Funny, Grant, I was just about to say the same thing to you. Go back to the bridge from whence you came, troll. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but, isn't a troll someone who reads articles just to comment on other people's comments? Somewhat like you are doing? (See "TMI comment of the year award" comment made at 1:44pm)

Grant... A troll is defined as (or at least, grouply defined in Wikipedia as), "a troll is someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response[1] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.[2]"

So let's see...

controversial? No, but I think your post is defined by that.
inflammatory? Maybe to you, but in response to an inflammatory comment made to someone just pointing out something.
irrelevant? It was you who was trying to make the OP sound like he was saying.. wait, let me use your words "Being a closeted gay man is *exactly* like being a computer engineer."
off-topic? Wow, totally. Fully and completely off topic. OP posted that it's common sense that people with the same belief systems, likes, dislikes, political stances, careers, etc. tend to migrate toward each other.
emotional response? I'm sure I got one out of you, but that was not the intent. I'm sure it received a lot less of an emotional response than your post. I didn't go out of my way to try to make someone look like an idiot. I just pointed out when someone did.
otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion? You better believe that's what your post was. And, strangely enough, my post was very on topic.

So who was the troll again?

It's not like I set out every morning to reply to something you wrote Grant. But you just make it so easy for me to find something dumb you wrote.

All I know is, that if I was the OP, I'd be quite pissed at your accusation. Instead, I'm delightfully amused.

And of the 1000+ comments I've made on the weblogs sites (I've been reading for a long time, what can I say... the count is not due to frequency of posting...) this is probably maybe only the 2nd time someone accused me of being a troll. So I think my track record is rather clean.

Wow. TMI comment of the year award?

Thanks for sharing, Enigma!

I could have made it worse, but I won't!!!

"It's called the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). It was signed into law in 1996 and states that the federal government defines marriage as a legal union exclusively between one man and one woman."

Ok, and where does it say that it states that it's a legal union between one straight man and one straight woman?

If you want to make the argument that two men or two women cannot get married, that's a valid argument to make. To say that homosexuals are not allowed to marry is a lie.

Oh, and sorry for the double-post... but where is the law that says that you cannot be denied housing, or fired from a job if you are straight?

If I tried to move into an apartment in a gay section of town and I was denied an apartment because I wasn't gay, do you think that anyone would come to my defense?

That's all I'm saying about equal protection of the law. Of course I don't think that you should be fired if you are gay. Of course I don't think you should be denied housing because you are gay. It's just that equal protection means just that. Equal. Not special.

Seriously, you could just Google this stuff.

The law that prevents you from being denied housing is The Fair Housing Act of 1968.

http://www.hud.gov/offices/fheo/FHLaws/index.cfm

For work related issues, there's the Civil Rights Act of 1964. And the issue isn't whether you can be "fired from a job *if* you are straight." The issue is that you can't be fired just *because* you're straight. As in, I can't fire you with the justification being "He's a heterosexual".

In just about every state, I *can* legally fire you with the reason "He's a homosexual". Not, "He's a lousy worker" or "He shows up late" but, "He's a homosexual, who otherwise is a good employee. I just don't want his kind around here". No other group can be treated that way legally. If I discover you're Jewish, or Christian, or Buddhist after I hire you, I can't fire you for that. If I discover you're a member of the KKK or, The Sons of Confederate Veterans, I can't fire you for that.

http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/vii.html

In fact, to tie this back to the original post, there is likely nothing stopping your employer from running this "Gaydar" algorithm against your list of Facebook friends, establishing that you're possibly gay, and firing you on the basis that they *believe* you to be a homosexual.

Beyond that, I'll just say again, I feel really sorry for you. It's quite obvious that your mouth is far more open than your mind.

*sigh*

Did I not just post above that I don't believe that being gay is cause to deny a job or housing?

All I'm saying, that there should be no such thing as a 'protected class'. If it's wrong to deny someone something for one reason, it's just as wrong to deny the same person the same thing for the inverse of that reason.

But that would require reading comprehension, and I cannot expect that from you Grant.

For every hate crime committed, there's another one that's not considered a hate crime, because it's only applied when A does something to B, but not when B does something to A.

Many times, someone is arguing for special rights under the call of equal rights.

Is it close minded to expect equal to actually mean equal? To you, it must be.