And again, I don't have to present original research because the two scientific bodies responsible for this research have already done it. I have cited my source, which is all that is needed for such widely accepted claims (accepted in psychological circles that is, which is what matters). While they do not know the causes of homosexuality, they do know it is not a choice for someone who feels this way. It has also not been a mental disorder for about 40 years now, which is another thing that separates it from conditions like the pedophilia you like to equate it with.

Thank god for that. ALL illegal discrimination boils down to someone believing their opinions are more important than the civil rights of others. It is very refreshing that our society does not allow people to use religious or any other cultural beliefs to interfere with the civil rights of others.

A religious person is allowed to not invite a homosexual over to a barbecue, but as soon as someone creates a business there are civil rights laws which supersede cultural prejudices. And like I said above, thank god for that.

Intrinsic qualities are not only caused by genes. Many disabilities have non-genetic causes but are still intrinsic qualities of the individual suffering from them. Whether or not homosexuality is caused by genetics is irrelevant to this discussion. If homosexuality is not genetic, that still doesn't make it a choice.

You can try to frame this however you like, but society decides what marriage is. And in case you haven't been paying attention the winds of change have made your definition of marriage incorrect.

Marriage used to just be a legal contract, and few people married for love. In that world your arguments make quite a bit of sense. Although any use of a historical definition of marriage is meaningless since almost no one in America feels the same way about marriage than even our great great grandparents did.

In today's world marriage is seen as an expression of love between two people. In this world, homosexuals are not allowed to express their love in the same way as heterosexuals. They are not given equal rights under the law, which is why the courts overwhelming strike down same sex marriage bans.

Both the American Psychiatric Association and American Psychological Association have declared this a solved issue since the 70's. People do not choose to be homosexual any more than they choose to be Asian. Here is a link to some literature on the matter in case you are actually interested instead of just trolling.

If a business was against all marriages then you could make a case for them attacking a lifestyle or behavior. But in this case they are only attacking those with an intrinsic attribute who wish to behave and live like those without this attribute.

You are essentially making an argument that if women were still not allowed to vote, it wouldn't be discriminatory because you are only against the behavior of women voting, not discriminatory towards women in general. It is a very poor argument.

I would agree that ex-cons have rights. Even pedophiles. Ex-cons do have legal limitations to protect society, such as protecting children from pedophiles. But I would defend a pedophile's right to order a burger at McDonalds without being discriminated against.

I have discussed these matters with many African American coworkers and friends and have never had resistance with treating both black and homosexual rights as civil rights matters. I obviously wouldn't insinuate the oppression (as you put it) of homosexuals is equal to what went on during the civil rights movement, since it isn't true. But I would absolutely say African Americans and homosexuals deserve the same rights for the same reasons.

I make the comparison not because they are equivalent in scale, but because by now society generally agrees that African Americans deserve the rights of the rest of us. For instance very few people still believe blacks and whites shouldn't marry each other. It makes this a perfect comparison to show how people will view today's struggle for LGBT rights 100 years from now.

You are allowed to act upon personal objections you have toward someone's behavior, just not to an intrinsic part of who they are. So you can refuse to serve someone because they are a 49ers fan, but not because they are a black person. It is a pretty easy distinction to see.

If a cake company refuses to make cakes for any weddings because they are against the institute of marriage, that would be well within their right. But refusing to make cakes for a homosexual wedding is absolutely no different than refusing to make cakes for an African American wedding. And that is where equal protection rights come in.

One is boycotting based on intrinsic attributes of a person, such as being black or homosexual. One is boycotting based on decisions made, such as being a member of a hate group or passing legislation with the intention to discriminate.

If you don't see the difference, I'm not sure how to continue any discussion on the matter.

False equivalency much? A company or individual being smart enough to pick battles which can be won is not being hypocritical. Refusing to do work with Saudi Arabia now would accomplish nothing. Perhaps refusing to do business with them 30 years from now if their own internal opinion on gay rights grows enough could do some good. And most likely only companies who continue to do business with them would have that leverage at all.

Well I for one know I matured a lot more while working in the real world than I did in college. Most likely I would have been a more mature 21 year old if I had started working at 17 than if I went to college. This isn't an argument that college is worthless, just that the idea an 18 year old in a dorm will mature faster than an 18 year old who needs to work to put food on the table is suspect.

Most 22 year old kids are more mature than most 18 year old kids, regardless of college.

Yes I am completely glossing over problems with current autonomous driving technology. I am only referring to a world that has these problems figured out. It may be in 5 years, it may be in 50, but it will happen. Any discussion over limitations of current technology is just a red herring.

First off, this will be nothing like any public system we currently have. It solves the last mile problem perfectly, and it a far more personal experience. In most situations each person will have their own car during commutes. Considering commuting times generally range from 7:00 am - 9 am, and the average commute is 25 minutes, even during the worst of peak times you could easily have 1 car to every 3 commuters after factoring in inefficiencies. Not everyone works 9-5, and not everyone with a car commutes to work. Even having enough cars to handle the worst of rush hour would likely require maybe a tenth of the total cars we have now. And that is without any increases carpooling.

Even assuming a 20 minute wait for each pickup (which I think is high, but I'll concede the point for arguments sake), that doesn't really delay most people for most trips. I am almost never in a situation where I decide to take a trip on a moments notice. Every time I leave the house there are some tasks I need to complete first. Make a grocery list, shower, pack the diaper bag, finish watching an episode of Walking Dead, etc. And lets not forget "oh crap where did I put my phone/keys/shoes/etc!" A 20 minute wait from the time I call for a car is very unlikely to ever delay me.

But as I admitted in another thread, it is often true that newer technologies require a slight inconvenience to enjoy great advantages. I fondly remember a time when I didn't "need" to carry my phone everywhere, but I can't imagine not having access to the Internet at any time. Sharing cars will certainly be less convenient in some situations, but in many ways it even increases freedom. I would have the freedom to "own" a minivan, truck, sedan, and fuel efficient commuter car at the same time. And on weekends I can have a convertible sports car arrive autonomously and then give me control for a more fun drive. As someone who still misses the Mustang I had in my youth, that sounds pretty great.

I think you are overestimating the amount of power lost by sharing autonomous cars. Once this sees widespread adoption any wait time is likely to be minimal. Getting ready to leave the house will probably take far longer than it takes the cab to get there.

We aren't talking about autonomous buses on a schedule, we are talking about autonomous vehicles that don't require a salary. They will be at least a couple orders of magnitude more common than cabs are today, so the wait times will be nothing like public transit today.

According to my reference below, on average only 23% of the total costs of each car is in R&D, Advertising, and Administration. Only 6% total is R&D. This means it is reasonable to assume if 75% fewer cars are sold, the total cost of the cars would go down around 57.75% (assuming administration costs would not be reduced). It isn't 75% savings, but it is still quite a lot. There would be more administration costs for the automated taxi services, but it would be heavily automated so it probably won't be much. Overall its likely people could see their monthly auto costs cut in half. That's assuming your 75% reduction figure is accurate that is.

You also would have savings from not needing a garage, which would be about $20k or $100 month less on your mortgage. Obviously this is only for new houses and retrofitted houses, but it would become more common over time to not have garages.

To contrast the fact you don't own your car, now you can change what type of car you want to drive each day. Drive a minivan when hauling the kids, a fuel efficient mini-car when commuting to work, and a sports car on the weekends (prices for certain cars will likely vary by day for this very reason).

source

Why such animosity? You obviously will be able to own your own car if you want to. It may be more expensive to own a car, or especially to find a house that hasn't converted their garage to other living space, but you can still own one. Why do you care so much if 90% of people find they don't need to own a car anymore? Are you upset that no one owns their own horse anymore, and that it is more expensive now to own one than it was is 1850?

The increased use of surveillance, both inside the car and on our streets.

That will be the real end of college, or at least college as we know it, but it not likely to be soon. College is simply still too good of an investment for most people. The differences in earnings between college graduates and high school graduates are staggering, and in today's economy the gap is growing. I believe this gap has more to do with HR screening policies than the actual education given, but that is irrelevant when making the decision of whether to go to college.

This statement gets thrown around a lot when discussing college, but I just don't see how it holds up. It is very rare for an undergraduate to do any significant research, so most of the learning comes from assignments and probably a little group work. Assignments usually just teach that all the answers you need to solve any problem can be found in the 1-3 books provided by the school. Usually you are even told which chapter has the answers, since that is the chapter you are currently studying. Group work teaches that the few talented kids should be careful not to delegate important work to their teammates, and most kids learn they can lean on the talented kids to do most of the work. One could say this helps teach delegation, but I have delegated in college and in the workplace and they are not comparable experiences.

There are plenty of students who take initiative to do research and get more from their professors. They are by far the exception to the rule. And almost always they are the students who already learned how to learn before they entered college.