Taint wrote:

I did. They're good for about 5.2 years of commitment.

It would have lasted longer if you hadn't kept leaving it out at night with the lid off.

Johnny_Rotten wrote:

Zookeeper wrote:

No, why would it?  Does one have to be a bigot to have an opinion on this you don't agree with?

Sorry if impugned your reputation. Please enlighten us as to nuances of if and how you envision gays should be treated differently in marketting to their needs alongside the rest of America.

That really is below your normal standard JR.  "How gays should be treated differently in marketing to their needs" is an odd way to ask "how profitable is this particular line likely to be considering how few gay marriages and civil unions take place?" 

For argument's sake I think you put a lot of stake in the wingnut's backlash.

I think you underestimate the number of people in the US who find gay marriage offensive vs. the number of gay people who get married or form civil unions.  You need to spend some time in the mid-west.

Did Billy Bob stop drinking Coors when they hired the Cheney's Gay daughter for pandering purposes?

No idea.  Never heard about that.  Were "action alerts" sent out by right wing groups over it?

I used to work at a marketing agency.  Pursuing any new marketing campaign costs money in terms of internal resources.  They didn't just walk through the cubicle farm and grab the first person who didn't seem to be too busy that afternoon.

True, but given that the company has decades of experience rolling out products for even smaller niches, compared to any measure of total gay population, I bet it would not sink their boat offer a gay line of cards.

Where did I say it would "sink their boat"?  I think it's a dumb business move, not a move destined to put them out of business.

You got a problem with private business pandering to segments of consumers?

Why would you assume I do?  Can't I just call it a stupid move without "having a problem"?

I do think  you are overlooking some factors:

The market is broader then the 2 states that have gay "marriage". I have been attending gay commitment ceremonies of friends for a decade now in other states.

I would suggest that your experience is exceptional and that a very very tiny tiny minority of Americans have ever been to such a cerimony.

Hallmark's flexibility in offering niche product lines.

No doubt they have had lots of niche lines tank.  That happens.  But usually that happens with nobody noticing.  In this case it made the news and created controversy.  We just differ on the affect that will have on their brand.

Good question.  Kwanza is hardly celebrated but even with the small population of celebrants it has surely they live in all 50 states.  Gay marriage only is legal in 2 of them.  I wouldn't be surprised if the only reason Hallmark sells Kwanza cards is to avoid the bad press they fear they would get for not providing them.  They probably think that from a PR perspective they are better off selling Kwanza cards than discontinuing the line (even if none get purchased).  But I'd say it hurts the Hallmark brand name more to sell gay marriage cards than it would to not sell them.

That's pretty fanciful.

You're quite the fancy-pants yourself JR.

Don't let the PC night terrors keep you up, get some rest.

And don't let the PC bullshit plug your ears or blind your eyes to the obvious.

Zookeeper wrote:

(Jupiterian point-by-point rebuttal.)

You seem to have a lot more confidence in the efficacy of these outrage boycotts than the rest of us.  Can you think of even one time where a boycott like this has made a significant impact?  Maybe there might be one out there, but I sure can't.  People love to do little insignificant things like signing petitions, but most of the outraged mobs won't even remember that they're boycotting after a day or two.

headkicker_girl wrote:

pALEPHx wrote:

headkicker_girl wrote:

Many gays have committment ceremonies.

They do?

LESBIANS.

Lesbians aren't gay, they're just in need of a good deep dicking.

...and a better haircut.

headkicker_girl wrote:

pALEPHx wrote:

headkicker_girl wrote:

Many gays have committment ceremonies.

They do?

LESBIANS.

Is this what lesbians wear in their commitment ceremonies?

Zookeeper wrote:

headkicker_girl wrote:

pALEPHx wrote:

They do?

LESBIANS.

Is this what lesbians wear in their commitment ceremonies?

They don't make tuxedos out of flannel.

How close is this to the mark for some of the single high-streeters here:

(Finds out one of their straight friends is getting married): "What an idiot!"
(Finds out one of their gay/lesbian friends is getting married): "How wonderful for them!"

Just wondering.  Honest.

Last edited by Zookeeper (2008-08-26 13:52:47)

headkicker_girl wrote:

If there are no children involved, and you don't plan to have children, there's really no need to get married.

Well, there's one reason: so you don't have to listen to people ask you why you're not married.

ptah13 wrote:

headkicker_girl wrote:

Zookeeper wrote:

How close is this to the mark for some of the single high-streeters here:

(Finds out one of their straight friends is getting married): "What an idiot!"
(Finds out one of their gay/lesbian friends is getting married): "How wonderful for them!"

Just wondering.  Honest.

I don't know what marriage was like in the old days, but as far as I'm concerned, now it's just financial codependence.  If there are no children involved, and you don't plan to have children, there's really no need to get married.

But what if you really want to have sex (other than oral or anal)?

Just pay for it.  It's cheaper in the long run.

headkicker_girl wrote:

ptah13 wrote:

headkicker_girl wrote:

I don't know what marriage was like in the old days, but as far as I'm concerned, now it's just financial codependence.  If there are no children involved, and you don't plan to have children, there's really no need to get married.

But what if you really want to have sex (other than oral or anal)?

Just pay for it.  It's cheaper in the long run.

I'm not sure if my Bible is different than  yours but I think sex without marriage is a sin against God.

Zookeeper wrote:

headkicker_girl wrote:

ptah13 wrote:

But what if you really want to have sex (other than oral or anal)?

Just pay for it.  It's cheaper in the long run.

OK, what are your rates?

Dude, I would be the worst hooker on the planet.  I don't think any amount of money could make me feign interest in some revolting slob.

Last edited by headkicker_girl (2008-08-26 19:10:01)

headkicker_girl wrote:

Zookeeper wrote:

headkicker_girl wrote:

Just pay for it.  It's cheaper in the long run.

OK, what are your rates?

Dude, I would be the worst hooker on the planet.

Then how good of an attorney can you be, really?

headkicker_girl wrote:

Zookeeper wrote:

headkicker_girl wrote:

Just pay for it.  It's cheaper in the long run.

OK, what are your rates?

Dude, I would be the worst hooker on the planet.  I don't think any amount of money could make me feign interest in some revolving slob.

What if he stayed in one place?

headkicker_girl wrote:

I don't know what marriage was like in the old days, but as far as I'm concerned, now it's just financial codependence.  If there are no children involved, and you don't plan to have children, there's really no need to get married.

Have you looked at the legal benefits given to "spouses" that are not extended to "partners"?

How about an effective halving of your health insurance costs?
The ability to jointly own property?
The ability to be involved and notified of health issues?

Now, granted, many of the gheys that I know that are truly long-term partners (a couple of 20 year veterans in there) have some kind of LLC or S-Corp that actually owns joint property and about 20 different powers of attorney to act on each others behalf, just so they can be roughly equal to the automatic protections of legal union.