[quote name='Arcademode']Wow, Google thinks I'm gay, WTF!
Thanks Frisky for clearing this up. Looks like Cheapy's trying to do something about these ads after all.
And everyone else is missing the point of my argument.
In simple terms: I'm saying that it's bad from a business standpoint to ruin the relationship with potential customers. That's why these ads aren't a good idea. Dumb answers like "then they can leave" do nothing but prove my point further.[/QUOTE]
Not much for logic, are you?
If Google, by some remarkable algorithm, decided you were gay, why would they show you an ad you would likely regard as hostile? If Google is making any judgments of your proclivities by showing you the ad, it is that you would be sympathetic to the cause being promoted. Unless, of course, the objective is not to gather votes but instead just to

with people. (Something I could really get behind. If I were a bored billionaire my ad budget for non-existent products or causes would be in the eight digit range.)
Further, you make the mistake of assuming a business cannot prosper by demographic discrimination. This, in fact, is at the heart of this site's intent. It isn't 'cheapasswhatever.com,' it's cheapassgamer.com. Already the target audience is narrowed down to those interested in obtaining games for less than the normal retail price at release. Further, while not entirely explicit in the name, the target audience is one that takes gaming as a hobby fairly seriously, to the extent that they would spend goodly amounts of time researching the subject here and discussing related issues. Further still, that the company of their fellow cheapass gamers would be favorable to discussing non-gaming subjects, although those tend to follow in demography of the self-identified gamer.
So the kind of person whose primary gaming interest runs to 'Barbie's Horse Adventures' can receive a less than hospitable reception on this site with little fear of damaging the business. Requiring the visitors here to be nice to the 'Barbie's horse Adventure' aficionado would likely drive away a considerable number.
Personally, I voted for Prop. 8. But I don't just want to eliminate gay marriage, I want to eliminate marriage as a governmental arbitrated entity. I no more want the government involved in marriage than in setting rules for who gets to take Communion at a Catholic church. Their religion, they can do whatever they want as long as it doesn't interfere with personal right defined in the Constitution.
If I really hated gays I'd do whatever I could to inflict legally binding marriage upon them. Why should they miss out on the joys of alimony, or better yet, palimony? As far as I care, the only point at which the government has any business getting involved in romantic relationships is if children result. It is the duty of government to represent the interests of citizens who cannot perform this task for themselves. Everything else is easily covered under standard contract law.
The way I'd like to have it, if you can find a church or other organization willing to marry you to another person, or a horse, or a street lamp, go for it. The little piece of paper they issue will have no legally binding significance to the rest of the world. The government should only get involved if you get the street lamp pregnant and refused to participate in the support of the resulting offspring.