eHarmony launches site for same-sex love seekers

In a move which both thrills and irritates this writer, eHarmony has agreed to open a new matching service for those who are homosexual by March 31, 2009. By starting CompatiblePartners.net, a new site for those who would like to pursue a same-sex relationship, eHarmony has avoided being found in violation of New Jersey's Law Against Discrimination (LAD).

This case went to the New Jersey Attorney General when a resident of the state filed a suit against eHarmony stating they were in violation of the state discrimination laws which state, "(LAD) makes it unlawful to subject people to differential treatment based on race, creed, color, national origin, nationality, ancestry, age, sex (including pregnancy), familial status, marital status, domestic partnership status, affectional or sexual orientation, atypical hereditary cellular or blood trait, genetic information, liability for military service, and mental or physical disability, perceived disability, and AIDS and HIV status. The LAD prohibits unlawful discrimination in employment, housing, places of public accommodation, credit and business contracts."

I'm completely thrilled because it's a step in the right direction for those who aren't straight, but it still doesn't completely feel like a win to me. While eHarmony will have to create a new website, pay $50,000 to the Attorney General's office for administrative fees and $5,000 to the person who first started this case, they get to do these things while still stating that they didn't break any laws.

It seems to me they were breaking a law and ought to say so and I'm frustrated that even though they are being penalized, they are still saying they were in the right. It's one thing for a website to state you must be older than the age of 13 to enter unless you have a parent's permission, it's a completely different story if a website essentially locks out those based on who they sleep with, the color of their skin or their religion.

eHarmony states they settled because "we believed that the complaint resulted from an unfair characterization of our business, we ultimately decided it was best to settle with the Attorney General since litigation outcomes can be unpredictable. We look forward to moving beyond this legal dispute, which has been a burden for the company, and continuing to advance our business model of serving individuals by helping them find successful, long term relationships." It doesn't seem like much of an unfair charcterization to me and seems akin to a website not allowing Asians in simply based on the fact they are Asian. They didn't allow someone into their "club" based on sexuality and settled simply so they could avoid having to come out and say that.

I suppose even with my ill feelings towards the outcome, I still have to be glad that they finally came to their senses and started work on the new website, I just have to wonder that after eight long years of being the odd match-maker out, will anyone really be able to forgive and forget and help make this new community strong and worth joining.

I know I won't be one, but it might be due to people like me, who can't easily forget being shunned simply due to who I sleep with, that through the new CompatiblePartners.net the first 10,000 people who register on the site will receive free access for the first year after it's launch.

Link: CompatiblePartners.net

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Windows Live version three, right around the corner.

Next Story

Microsoft says "no" to Yahoo buy-out, only wants search deal

118 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

I wonder what would happen if a straight person sued a gay dating website for not providing opposite-sex matches?

Seriously though, it's nice to see homophobic discrimination being tolerated less and less in the United States. Not sure why the homophobes have to hide themselves behind their Bible all the time. Don't tell them that homosexuals can be Christian too, it will shatter their whole ignorant world!

You bring up a good point. A straight wouldn't sue over a gay site for not offering hetero search options. That's probably the best concise reason why the lawsuit was ridiculous.

I would just like to add, btw, that I take huge offense at hetero pr0n sites not offering pictures of dude on dude bootysport. These sites are for-profit businesses and should be held to the same standards! Why are they allowed to only cater to hetero pr0n-seekers? This is an outrage! I am outraged!

I said good day!

I fully support hot chicks being able to hook up with each other, but dudes? I'm sorry, but we gotta draw the line somewhere!

Same sex is same sex.... Kinda odd to say "gay" girls are okay but "gay" men are not. At its core, there is no difference.... just cuz U would rather see dual mustache rides as opposed to a sausage swordfight doesnt make it any different -its STILL same sex, homosexual or whatever- or more or less intolerable to others.

ADDITION: U stated hot chicks.... pls define.... Everyone has diff tastes... and if we COULD define a global "ugly" then by yer rules: Men straight up CANT be gay.... women can only be gay if deemed "hot" enough to be

Sounds like a WHOLE other layer of discrimination there fellah :S

Zyro

Opps went to hit EDIT and might have hit REPORT POST.... sorry admins if that happened....my bad.....sorry...I'm new? lol

"Kinda odd to say "gay" girls are okay but "gay" men are not."
I guess it is a matter of opinion. Because I can't see how a man (or woman) can love a hairy @ss. I just dont get it. Nor do I want to.
I can see how girls would see beauty in themselves. Well, let me be a more politically correct...I can digest the idea of a girl loving on a girl a lot better than 2 guys playing with their junk.

LOL I fell off my chair reading that last bit LOL

Of course you can see the beauty of 2 woman goin at it.... U like women... and it therefore makes sense that ya wouldnt wanna fiddle with anyone elses "junk"

Yes there does SEEM to be a growing tendancy for women to be bi... I dont think this has as much to do with "nature" or "natural behavior" as it has to do with culture and trends. I think its been labled trendy for a woman to be Bi by the powers that decide "Whats cool" and "Whats not". I'm not sure who these ppl are that get to make these decisions but they're the same ppl that made smoking so cool for one generation and then "filthy disgusting" for the next etc.

I myself am quite striaght and get nothin outta the idea of 2 woman fondeling their common lumps of flesh or playin with "a 2 headed monster" if ya know what I mean....tryin to stay reasonably clean here.

I also know quite a few women that see no attraction in their same sex. In fact are a lil put out when the prospect is suggested

I further to this know a couple of females that seemingly suddenly became Bi after the paris hilton other famous "hot" woman make out incidents. Woman that never before showed any interest in their fellow woman....and of these couple women that claimed to be Bi, only one of them actually got a Girlfriend and maintained a relationship past a make out session.

Perceptions and realities on such subjects as this and religeon etc are so screwed or blurred these days. Whats good for the goose is no longer good for the gander so to speak.

Ties right into my "gay girls are ok but gay men arent" statement you quoted

Zyro

First, I've read through a handful of the above arguments. The debate continues blah blah blah.

My message may surprise gays here or those who support gay rights as heterosexuals. I am a gay man who is OKAY with eHarmony not providing same-sex search options. Let's be objective.

1) The creator of eHarmony is a (more or less) devout Christian who used to be close buds with James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family. His stance on homosexuality is clear.

2) eHarmony was not created for the purpose to single out homosexuals. It was genuinely created as a dating site for men to find women and women to find men. It's not like they stood around and delighted in the fact that gay search options would not be featured.

3) Someone above commented that no law should tell a dating site what services it can or cannot offer. I agree. I can't sue Apple for not offering a software title that Windows-based PCs offer; that's nuts. eHarmony did not slander homosexuals on its site or even suggest anything derogatory. To my knowledge, the actual eHarmony service itself did not promote any type of intolerance to the "homosexual agenda" or those who identify themselves as homosexuals.

4) If you're gay, don't go to eHarmony.com, plain and simple. Just about every other site other there offers same-sex options and some are BETTER and FREE (OKCupid for example).

5) Here's something I live by: don't go somewhere you're not wanted. It's not oppression to not be allowed to join eHarmony as someone seeking a same-sex relationship because A) eHarmony doesn't keep me down. B) It didn't take anything away from me or tell me I have to change. C) As long as the dating site market has choices that meet my needs, there's no real reason to be upset.

I can just go elsewhere and spend my dollar at another site -- their loss.

Bottom line is the eHarmony folks weren't intentionally trying to be exclusive from the site's inception. What they do after that and what they communicate in response to accusations of unfair discrimination is another thing however.

I've read though most of this BS thread, and I have to say...

What you said made the most sense with out throwing emotions into the mix.

seebaran said,
First, I've read through a handful of the above arguments. The debate continues blah blah blah.

My message may surprise gays here or those who support gay rights as heterosexuals. I am a gay man who is OKAY with eHarmony not providing same-sex search options. Let's be objective.

1) The creator of eHarmony is a (more or less) devout Christian who used to be close buds with James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family. His stance on homosexuality is clear.

2) eHarmony was not created for the purpose to single out homosexuals. It was genuinely created as a dating site for men to find women and women to find men. It's not like they stood around and delighted in the fact that gay search options would not be featured.

3) Someone above commented that no law should tell a dating site what services it can or cannot offer. I agree. I can't sue Apple for not offering a software title that Windows-based PCs offer; that's nuts. eHarmony did not slander homosexuals on its site or even suggest anything derogatory. To my knowledge, the actual eHarmony service itself did not promote any type of intolerance to the "homosexual agenda" or those who identify themselves as homosexuals.

4) If you're gay, don't go to eHarmony.com, plain and simple. Just about every other site other there offers same-sex options and some are BETTER and FREE (OKCupid for example).

5) Here's something I live by: don't go somewhere you're not wanted. It's not oppression to not be allowed to join eHarmony as someone seeking a same-sex relationship because A) eHarmony doesn't keep me down. B) It didn't take anything away from me or tell me I have to change. C) As long as the dating site market has choices that meet my needs, there's no real reason to be upset.

I can just go elsewhere and spend my dollar at another site -- their loss.

Bottom line is the eHarmony folks weren't intentionally trying to be exclusive from the site's inception. What they do after that and what they communicate in response to accusations of unfair discrimination is another thing however.



Cheers to both you and Joshie Sir! If those that are members of the same sex community can find it in themselves to not take offense by what eHarmoney was offering then I dont see how anyone NOT of that orientation could.

I have read thru this thread and dont beleive I saw this observation, so I now offer it. Please keep in mind this is not what i am personally calling for , but am curious to bring to the discussion to see how thengs evolve:

By this precedent. In forcing eHarmoney to accomodate the same sex community -seemingly without the MAJORITY of the same sex community calling for it- has not the door been opened for other "lawsuit seekers" to slap discrimination allegations against Same sex only dating sites like the afore mentioned OKCupid by seebaran? You would think so.... If it is wrong to not be able to find same sex partners on a site then, should not the inverse be wrong also? To not enable heterosexuals to find matches on same sex sites?

Just a random thought I thought I'd offer up

This is my 1st post incidently....been comin to Neowin since the begining...dunno why i never signed up....but here I am! Great place to be!

Zyro

Why should eHarmony be forced to do this?

They're a business. Why can't they choose to cater to heterosexual couples?

What's next, Christian dating sites being forced to do Muslim, or homosexual matching too?

cyberstew said,
Why should eHarmony be forced to do this?

They're a business. Why can't they choose to cater to heterosexual couples?

What's next, Christian dating sites being forced to do Muslim, or homosexual matching too?

eHarmony IS a christian dating site. As least as far as I know -- founded on christian ideals at the very least.. Why this person chose to go after eHarmony instead of just choosing to use one of the other dozens of dating websites out there???

Why on earth would a gay person want to be on a dating site that is marketed towards straight people anyways? It doesn't make any sense. This leads me to believe they aren't in it so much as for the discrimination as they are for the little bit of money they are going to get.

cyberstew said,
Why should eHarmony be forced to do this?

They're a business. Why can't they choose to cater to heterosexual couples?

What's next, Christian dating sites being forced to do Muslim, or homosexual matching too?


So any business can discriminate? No way. I don't care if they are selling Klan teeshirts, if someone who is black wants to buy them, they HAVE to let them. Otherwise it's against the law.

They are a business and all businesses have to abide by the laws that protect us from being discriminated against. It's odd so many people are against this and think it's wrong for them to be forced to open a new site.

Like my example above, if an online store chose only to allow whites to purchase and banned anyone they thought was black simply for not being white...people would be up in arms! This is no different.

What about convenience stores that have signs in them that say "No shoes, no shirt, no service"? They're choosing who they will and will not do business with. I don't see it at as denying them anything. It's just a site that is marketed towards straight people. Easy as that. Why not use one that would be directed towards your interests?

trag3dy said,
What about convenience stores that have signs in them that say "No shoes, no shirt, no service"? They're choosing who they will and will not do business with. I don't see at as denying them anything. It's just a site that is marketed towards straight people. Easy as that. Why not use one that would be directed towards your interests?

Requiring proper attire whether it be fore aesthetic or sanitary reasons is not discrimination. You're using a totally different concept to rationalize discrimination.

You know what:

You don't go to the Supermarket to Swim in a pool. It is obvious that if you want to make a statement you have to change the definition of what is right and wrong. It is obvious that by adding a cloud, rather than eliminating, to the definition of stated things one can really get away with a lot of things. Once this door is opened, you will actually be able to say that a PC will take a Laptop to court because it wants to be portable.
Hello: Look at yourself in the mirror. You are defined by what you see. A dog cannot say: " Hey, I think I am a horse...". But we humans love to play with reality and accommodate it to our taste.

Triliaeris said,
So any business can discriminate? No way.

Sure hope the Feds don't side with spammers or anyone else that we've banned and discriminate against.


It is really very simple... Life is about choice... We should not be harsh on people decisions. It is simply wrong. If we were given the choice to select our future outcome, it is very unjust to try and control it.
The way I see it; simple:
Let's say we put a man an a woman who love each other together in an island, for many years, and only given coverage over basic needs. After a long period of time, their descendants will tell us about them.
On the other hand, let two men who love each other in the same island. Again, by themselves. We will give them the same amount of time, no wait, twice the amount of time, nah...!, four times. Well, say goodbye to humanity and history.
You see, they do have the right to do what they want, love can only be explained by them who feel it. We can not judge their decisions just pray that we do not depend on them for our race survival.

One other comment: For those that say that it is not just about reproduction, Well:

No Thanks To You, That You Are Posting In This Forum Today... Think Of It...!

To preface my comments, flame all you want; it's doesn't really matter to me; it just shows your immaturity.

I disagree with the courts decision; but eHarmony's CHOICE bothers me even more; and yes it was a choice. Their choice was to pursue the money rather than the principles that Dr. Neil Clark Warren founded the organization on. Unfortunately eHarmony has gone by the way the world and is in it in for the money; rather than upholding the God centered morals/principles it was founded upon. If they weren't in it for the money they would have simply closed the site, rather than offering a service that goes against what principles set forth in God's word, the Bible.

As someone who found their spouse, of 5 years now, through eHarmony it disappoints me even more. When we're asked how we met we feel like we have to preface it and explain that what eHarmony is now, even before being required to offer same sex matching, is not what it was 6 years ago. We've talked to many people that had been or are using eHarmony recently and it has change significantly. We know many couples that met through eHarmony, several years ago, who feel the same way about the site.

Very disappointing and unfortunately the way the world is moving.

Homosexual people ARE NOT being denied the service. The service is there, and they can use it. They can use everything that the service has to offer, with no restrictions. It's quite simple.

If i open a online food store, and sell only meat products, can a vegetarian sue me for not providing a vegetarian option? No, they can still buy the meat, they can use my service, so they are not being denied anything. Same with this website.

.Vamp said,
Homosexual people ARE NOT being denied the service. The service is there, and they can use it. They can use everything that the service has to offer, with no restrictions. It's quite simple.

If i open a online food store, and sell only meat products, can a vegetarian sue me for not providing a vegetarian option? No, they can still buy the meat, they can use my service, so they are not being denied anything. Same with this website.

The food is being discriminated against, not you. I don't think the veggies will be upset.

GreyWolfSC said,

The food is being discriminated against, not you. I don't think the veggies will be upset.

The food is being discriminated against? Really? Please explain.

I don't understand the basis behind this at all. There are certainly sites that cater strictly for a homesexual audience, so I don't see why there can't be a site that caters strictly for a heterosexual audience. Surely, as others have stated before me, it's about companies targeting their business and even their areas of expertise.

If I start a website about dog training, where my own area of expertise lies, I'm not going out of my way to deliberately exclude the training of cats and horses, etc, I'm just focusing on one aspect, expecting others to fill in the gaps.

Because in some states is illegal to discriminate against homosexuality, hence to put a only-heterosexual site is forbidden.

Instead the opposite is allowed.

In the same way, its illegal to put a white-men site only but its legal to put a black-women webspace.

IMHO discrimination must work in both side, or simply don't work, currently its work one-side only.

I don't see any problem with this other than the people that are complaining because of a web site that will help homosexual persons find a date.

I believe that this kind of sites (not only this one, every date site, straight or gay) are absurd. But to each, its own.

The lawsuit is ridiculous because the company is only segmenting its market, nothing else.

Speaking as a gay man, this whole thing sounds completely and utterly ridiculous. eHarmony can serve whoever the hell it wants to serve, and if they leave gay people out of the equation, I'm not offended in the least. There are tons of other matchmaking sites that already offer services for gay people to take advantage of. We aren't being discriminated against here. The way eHarmony matches people is based on man-to-woman whatevers of compatibility. The system they have in place isn't even optimized for same-sex couples. We aren't being locked out of a service that we could otherwise use--we're being locked out of a service that's based on studies that have nothing to do with us in the first place. They would have to create something completely new, from scratch, to provide matchmaking to everybody.

Jeez, I always knew eHarmony didn't work for m4m searching, and all it ever made me do was snicker a little and move on. What the hell sort of person DWELLS on something like this? Get a freaking life, gawd.

Whoever filed this suit has a personality that no matchmaking science known to man could find a true love for. Bastunt'll be alone forever.

I think you put into words what I was trying to say, but couldn't properly explain. I'm straight, though I have no issue with homosexuality, but my understanding of the situation is that their algorithm simply doesn't work well with homosexual match making and, thus, it wouldn't make sense for them to offer the service.

I agree with Joshie on this.

They are not discriminating by limiting their services. They are just focusing their business. While I am happy to hear they have decided to open their business to a larger audience that typically has more disposable income, it is rather unfortunate that it is being done because of a law suit brought on by someone that was probably only interested in the financial gain.

Just as eHarmony is geared towards straight couples, there are sites that are specific strictly to gay men. You can put numerous analogies to this, but what's the point. This was a bogus lawsuit that should have been thrown out of court in stead of pursued.

This is the most meaningful statement on this thread.... and I 100% agree with it... America is to damn sue happy. And afraid of "insulting" someone. The internet is a big forum for everyone to talk about, do, or display anything they want. If you dont like the contents dont read the page, thats why there are over 1 billion other sites out there for you to find.

Wow this is one of the most absurd things I have ever heard. It is their business, they should be able to cater to whatever the hell they want to. So I guess BET should be sued because it's BLACK Entertainment Television...

LordJTC said,
Wow this is one of the most absurd things I have ever heard. It is their business, they should be able to cater to whatever the hell they want to. So I guess BET should be sued because it's BLACK Entertainment Television...

BET does not prevent nor attempt to prevent anyone from watching their network.

Correct, however, a "White Entertainment Television" station would be subject to federal prosecution, myriad lawsuits and a personal crusade against them by Jackson and Sharpton.

wow...so now the government can force us to offer services? this isn't facebook, its not random people getting to know each other. their services pair people based on whatever their so called social and psychological criteria are, which is obviously is going to be different for homosexuals than it is for heterosexuals.

even if they wanted to, its not going to be a snap of the fingers, which means they're being forced to develop something new. that's like telling a burger joint they're required to serve something vegetarian. and again i say this because in this case they are and would be totally different services, it has nothing to do with discrimination against ones lifestyle.

okay now that is a perfect analogy. burger joints forced to serve vegetarian food because vegetarians are being discriminated. it's a life choice just like religion or sexuality, if eharmony can be forced to provide services for gays then all restaurants must provide food for vegetarians.

I'm gay and I'm sorry this is absurd. I hope and pray someone with money and time to spare sues Gay.com because the services offered are for homosexuals and bisexuals not heterosexuals...go get em!

You know, I was walking the other day and passed by a store that sold wedding dresses exclusively for women. Since I am a man, I think that the legal system should force them to expand and offer dresses for men too. At least I should be able to get $5000 from it!

They offer the same dresses whether a man or woman wants to wear them I bet. eHarmony does not. If you want to look for a man you must be a woman, or vice versa. Your dress shop will not refuse to sell you a dress.

oliverprescott said,
but they don't make dresses for men

Sure they do. Go pick out a dress that fits and wear it if you want. What you mean is that men don't generally wear dresses. That doesn't mean they can't.

The seamstress told me that she doesn't know how to cut dresses for men and that she doesn't have any patterns for mens' sizes. I just can't believe how closed-minded she is. For the last 60 years she's only been offering services to half the people!

Slacker said,
The seamstress told me that she doesn't know how to cut dresses for men and that she doesn't have any patterns for mens' sizes. I just can't believe how closed-minded she is. For the last 60 years she's only been offering services to half the people!

I don't believe that for a second. If you want a wedding dress, here are some tips: http://weddings.lovetoknow.com/wiki/Wedding_Dresses_for_Men

Slacker said,
The seamstress told me that she doesn't know how to cut dresses for men and that she doesn't have any patterns for mens' sizes. I just can't believe how closed-minded she is.

Give up. It's bad enough that your first observation was patently inaccurate but your follow up was cringe-worthy. Any store with competent staff could make such alterations, as there are many manly women and many that are overweight - clearly bodyshape is not an issue. As for patterns - they aren't gender specific and are matched to the function of the garment.

If you're going to try to be funny then at least do it well.

I find this stupid, the site is not discriminating, a person attracted to the same sex could still use the site just not to find some one of the same sex.

Since the food analogies where bad choices what if i was Muslim and went to a Christian Book Store can i sue them for not selling me books about Islam since they would be discriminating based on my religion.

spetz said,
I find this stupid, the site is not discriminating, a person attracted to the same sex could still use the site just not to find some one of the same sex.

Since the food analogies where bad choices what if i was Muslim and went to a Christian Book Store can i sue them for not selling me books about Islam since they would be discriminating based on my religion.

That doesn't make any sense. You are trying to buy a product that they don't have. You're not being denied service because of who you are. If you were Muslim and they refused to sell you a book because of that, sue away.

spetz said,
Since the food analogies where bad choices what if i was Muslim and went to a Christian Book Store can i sue them for not selling me books about Islam since they would be discriminating based on my religion.

That's a good example. If i went to a book store that only matched people up with christian books, but i wanted to be matched up with a muslim book, and they didn't help me, i could sue them for religious discrimination!

I don't believe the New Jersey law applies.... The entire service was centered around bring heterosexual couples together, this isn't discrimination, it's what they're providing. I believe the law was meant to apply to un-related services that deny service to homosexuals i.e. search engines, tax analysis, etc..

Evolution said,
I don't believe the New Jersey law applies.... The entire service was centered around bring heterosexual couples together, this isn't discrimination, it's what they're providing. I believe the law was meant to apply to un-related services that deny service to homosexuals i.e. search engines, tax analysis, etc..

Their advertisements say nothing about "heterosexual." There's a reason they don't.

So Evolution, if I created a service centered around white couples getting together under your theory this would not be discrimination against blacks, because the service I am providing is for white couples, this does not sound right to me.

homosexuals do have equal rights as far as what the state provides to all citizens (such as the right to marriage). they can legally marry any member of the opposite sex. unless you want to completely pervert the meaning of marriage, it seems more like they want special treatment and not equal treatment. which makes sense in a way, they do claim that being gay is genetic so in a way they are special needs.

oliverprescott said,
homosexuals do have equal rights as far as what the state provides to all citizens (such as the right to marriage). they can legally marry any member of the opposite sex. unless you want to completely pervert the meaning of marriage, it seems more like they want special treatment and not equal treatment. which makes sense in a way, they do claim that being gay is genetic so in a way they are special needs.

This article has nothing to do with gay marriage. There are a number of threads in the forums to debate such issues.

Special needs because their genetics are set a specific way? What, are people with blond hair and blue eyes special needs too in your world?

oliverprescott said,
no, having different color skin, hair, eye colors or looks in general is perfectly normal. thinking you're a member of an opposite sex is about as normal as thinking you're a duck as far a I'm concerned and if you do then there is obviously something wrong with your head. just because something is caused by genetics doesn't suddenly make it a good thing you know, a lot of bad things are caused by genetics

I'm quite certain I'm a man. I'm not sure what you're talking about.

oliverprescott said,
thinking you're a member of an opposite sex is about as normal as thinking you're a duck as far a I'm concerned and if you do then there is obviously something wrong with your head.

You're confusing homosexuality with transgender dysphoria. Homosexuals do not believe they're a member of the opposite sex but are merely attracted to people of the same gender. Your ignorance is astounding, matched only by your unabashed bigotry.

Also, statements like "they do claim that being gay is genetic" are worthless; to whom does "they" refer? Scientists? Homosexuals? Priests? Politicians? Not that all members of any of those categories agree on the matter.

Honestly, topics like this really do bring out the bottom-feeders.

All I'm saying is that you can't have it both ways, you can't claim that something in your head makes you think a certain way and that if that "something" were normal you would think like normal people and then say that you are normal. You can't go against the natural order of things and try and plead with the world that what you are doing is normal. being gay isn't "normal". Also many many gays have come out saying that being gay is something that you are born with and you can't just choose to be gay, brain studies have been done on the matter and it isn't the same as transgender dysphoria.

I wanted to sound all cool and say there was something more astounding than your ignorance but I really don't think anything matches it. bigotry you say? since when was being normal bigotry? People have become so messed up these days that they'll argue that anything is okay. somethings are just wrong and you don't need any religion or morals to tell you what they are, you just know right from wrong.

This is a tough one. Although I do think that homosexuals should have equal rights as far as what the state provides to all citizens (such as the right to marriage), I do not think that it is right that a private business should be forced to provide its relationship based services to the gay community.

This is an extreme example, but it is the best I can think of. What if a brothel in a state where prostitution was legalized, such as Nevada, was forced to service homosexuals or else be sued? What if having homosexual clients became a determent to heterosexual business?

This is a tough one.

Shadrack said,
This is a tough one. Although I do think that homosexuals should have equal rights as far as what the state provides to all citizens (such as the right to marriage), I do not think that it is right that a private business should be forced to provide its relationship based services to the gay community.

This is an extreme example, but it is the best I can think of. What if a brothel in a state where prostitution was legalized, such as Nevada, was forced to service homosexuals or else be sued? What if having homosexual clients became a determent to heterosexual business?

This is a tough one.

I'm not sure it's that tough. Back in the days of segregation, blacks were allowed to ride the bus - they just weren't allowed to sit. The nerve of them, right? After all, they were already allowed on the bus - why should they be allowed to sit? Was it right that the government forced transportation companies to get rid of those sorts of practices?

As much as I dislike the government stepping in to tell a private company how to do things, if any time for such an action to be taken then it's in circumstances like these where it's justified. The government here is ideally an entity that exists to ensure freedom and equality for all of its citizens. Some private business owners and regular citizens are currently denying equality to homosexuals. It's up to the government to ensure that the discrimination is toned down, if not completely eradicated.

Who gets to choose which group receives the government's aid? I have no answer to that. I just recognize that what's going on here is in line with the ideals of our society, and the government is performing a justified action in protecting those ideals and enforcing them in society.

yes because going to a company that serves a certain type of product which you are fully aware of and then being ****ed off that they serve it and not something else is considered discriminating now. complete BS if you ask me, who cares that a dating website doesn't offer gays anything, not being able to use a dating website isn't the same as being turned down for a job because you are black or not getting in a club because you Asian.

Chugworth said,
So let me get this straight (no pun intended)... I can sue KFC for not selling food for hamburger lovers? Interesting...

No, but if they decide not to serve you because of your race, religion, sexuality or gender...then you can sue them. No where in LAD does it state it's discrimination simply because they offer or don't offer something you like. There is no "business contract" between you and a company when it comes to your likes or dislikes, only your purchases.

Triliaeris said,
No where in LAD does it state it's discrimination simply because they offer or don't offer something you like.

But that's essentially what this is about! It seems then that this law is unfair. It offers protections to those who like people of the same gender, but not to those who like hamburgers.

And we could take this even further. What about people who like Apple computers instead of PCs? Oh wait, they're already covered... :P

Chugworth said,
But that's essentially what this is about! It seems then that this law is unfair. It offers protections to those who like people of the same gender, but not to those who like hamburgers.

And we could take this even further. What about people who like Apple computers instead of PCs? Oh wait, they're already covered... :P

Do you kiss your hamburgers?

Looks like the queers and perverts are unfortunately gaining ground. Homosexuality is not a civil right, it's an immoral peversion that dooms people to an eternity in hell and more than likely to get AIDS than a straight person. For those who wish to condemn their lives to such torment, they can do it but I won't be apart of that nor will I do anything to accept or promote that. In fact I'll do everything in my human power to shove homosexuality back in the closet and lock the door.

I can't help but think you're trying to make Christians look bad. Then know that Christians don't behave as you are right now.

Read how Christ treats the sexually immoral. You'll find it's not in the way you are right now.

Nope, not making any christians look bad. Because that's in the bible that homosexuals, adulterers, murderers, etc will not inherit the kingdom of God and will be cast to hell. Plus it's factually proven time and again that homosexuals are pretty much the reason AIDS even exists because the infection rate is sky high in gas versus straight people.

As christians we are called to hate the sin and love the sinner... which includes ensuring that perverse immorality such as homosexual rights ARE fully stopped and not allowed to corrupt children and adults in this nation.

On top of that we are to get gays the christian counseling they need which includes getting saved and renouncing their sin of homosexuality.

modem said,
Nope, not making any christians look bad. Because that's in the bible that homosexuals, adulterers, murderers, etc will not inherit the kingdom of God and will be cast to hell. Plus it's factually proven time and again that homosexuals are pretty much the reason AIDS even exists because the infection rate is sky high in gas versus straight people.

As christians we are called to hate the sin and love the sinner... which includes ensuring that perverse immorality such as homosexual rights ARE fully stopped and not allowed to corrupt children and adults in this nation.

On top of that we are to get gays the christian counseling they need which includes getting saved and renouncing their sin of homosexuality.

Absolutely disgusting. I wish I could find enough intolerance and hatred within myself as you seem to have found so I could turn it against you and see how you like it. Fortunately for you and myself, I can't. I find it interesting that your attitude probably will hurt you more than me.

I think someone's scared to death of their own homosexual feelings. It's OK. Homosexuality is rampant in the animal world. It's natural, it's biological. If you're curious, you need to find an outlet to express those feeling and come to terms with them. There is all kinds of support for that. You're not alone, modem.

modem im with you! , im not here to judge em though but im totally against that stuff as it's immoral and not natural and God is against it.

but i guess main thing im against that 'there' trying to pass is 'gay marriage' which is 'between a man and a women' , cause they can do what they want on the side it's there choice... but to bring marriage into it... it's just wrong.

ThaCrip said,
modem im with you! , im not here to judge em though but im totally against that stuff as it's immoral and not natural and God is against it.

Why isn't it natural? Are you one of those people who believes that if two life forms aren't directly trying to procreate, that they're not natural? Pray tell, how do you explain bee colonies?

As for immoral, that's your judgemental opinion. As for whether or not God is against that, neither you nor I have the authority to say that. As far as I'm concerned, homosexuality exists in other animals (this is a fact) and it also exists in humans. It's something amorous, which has the potential to promote more peace and love within society. If I had to place bets, I'd say that God condones it just fine. As for the people who wish to persecute others, however - I wouldn't be betting on God condoning that.

Not that it really matters. How would you like to be treated? Wouldn't you like to be free to live as you are? I'm sure you would. Homosexuals will not destroy society, nor will they negatively impact you or those you love. Live and let live.

Catharsis said,
I can't help but think you're trying to make Christians look bad. Then know that Christians don't behave as you are right now.

Read how Christ treats the sexually immoral. You'll find it's not in the way you are right now.

The following is a dialog between Jesus and a woman caught in adultery by the Jews, they planned to test Jesus and to trap Him. After Jesus asked them if any of them have not sinned, then they can cast the stone at her. Then one by one departed from the oldest first.

11"No one, sir," she said.
"Then neither do I condemn you," Jesus declared. "Go now and leave your life of sin."

Jesus was much more compassionate than the Jews because He did not condemn her of her previous sins. However, we can see that Jesus said to her, "leave your life of sin" This means that from that moment on, she should not commit adultery anymore, because it is a sin in the eyes of Jesus.

It amazes me of how the gays and those who support gays push 'tolerance' and 'equality' and yet when people stand up against the immorality and disgusting lifestyle of homosexuality, they start screaming and calling us bigots. Talk about two faced and double tongued.

Gays have the same amounts of rights guaranteed under the constitution now as they did 200 years ago. There is no right to go against what is natural and flaunt homosexuality. The right to live free and how they want in their homes is protected and guaranteed, gay marriage, forcing the gay agenda on those who refuse it is not a right and in fact is full out warring attack by the gays for those who don't conform or believe they way they do.

While I love those and wish for those who are gay to become saved to leave their life of sin and to sin no more by leaving homosexuality, I will fight to the death and don't care what ANYONE says when I stand up homosexuality. I take the insults and mockings as badges of honor.

modem said,
It amazes me of how the gays and those who support gays push 'tolerance' and 'equality' and yet when people stand up against the immorality and disgusting lifestyle of homosexuality, they start screaming and calling us bigots. Talk about two faced and double tongued.

Gays have the same amounts of rights guaranteed under the constitution now as they did 200 years ago. There is no right to go against what is natural and flaunt homosexuality. The right to live free and how they want in their homes is protected and guaranteed, gay marriage, forcing the gay agenda on those who refuse it is not a right and in fact is full out warring attack by the gays for those who don't conform or believe they way they do.

While I love those and wish for those who are gay to become saved to leave their life of sin and to sin no more by leaving homosexuality, I will fight to the death and don't care what ANYONE says when I stand up homosexuality. I take the insults and mockings as badges of honor.

America is becoming a theocracy. The United States is really one of the very few countries in the world where Christians are not only surprisingly widespread but also have a great deal of political power. Unfortunately.

"Saved" and "sin" are all Judaeo-Christian notions. They're human constructs that have been used to great political advantage.

modem said,
It amazes me of how the gays and those who support gays push 'tolerance' and 'equality' and yet when people stand up against the immorality and disgusting lifestyle of homosexuality, they start screaming and calling us bigots. Talk about two faced and double tongued.

Gays have the same amounts of rights guaranteed under the constitution now as they did 200 years ago. There is no right to go against what is natural and flaunt homosexuality. The right to live free and how they want in their homes is protected and guaranteed, gay marriage, forcing the gay agenda on those who refuse it is not a right and in fact is full out warring attack by the gays for those who don't conform or believe they way they do.

While I love those and wish for those who are gay to become saved to leave their life of sin and to sin no more by leaving homosexuality, I will fight to the death and don't care what ANYONE says when I stand up homosexuality. I take the insults and mockings as badges of honor.

If being "saved" means being like you I want no part in it.

ThaCrip said,
modem im with you! , im not here to judge em though but im totally against that stuff as it's immoral and not natural and God is against it.

but i guess main thing im against that 'there' trying to pass is 'gay marriage' which is 'between a man and a women' , cause they can do what they want on the side it's there choice... but to bring marriage into it... it's just wrong.

ThaCrip (and I guess this would go to modem too) I have read the Bible and I have deducted that Christians who found their hate of homosexuals on Biblical teachings are either hypocrites or uneducated about their own religion. Here's why:

Genesis 19:4-29 is about Sodom Gomorrah. A city full of homosexuals that gets burnt down to the ground by God. This is NOT a sign that he wished to kill them because they were gay: the citizens of these towns were also criminals, gang rapists and unbelievers (God had no mercy for them in the Old Testament). God would certainly not have tolerated these two towns even if they weren't gay. Also, did you know Jewish tradition does not include this interpretation of the tale even though the Old Testament is DIRECTLY derived from Jewish writings? Either the Jewish people all forgot about it and burnt all their writings which described this tale OR maybe the Christian clergy just added it to the Bible because it would be very easy to do and would reflect the contemporary social norms.

Leviticus 18:22 says it is an abomination for a man to sleep with a man. Seems like a pretty solid justification for hating gays, right? WRONG. This portion of the Old Testament contains A FRIKKIN LOT (613) rules that Christians do not care to follow. Unless you decide to follow all the 613 rules (which would pretty much make you Jewish), you'd be a hypocrite to put so much emphasis on one of the laws while ignoring all the others.

In the New Testament Romans 1:26, Corinthians 6:9-10, and Timothy 1:10 also contain seemingly homophobic messages. These parts describe homosexual behavior as incorrect, unnatural behavior contrary to sound doctrine. In Ancient Rome, effeminacy was frowned upon by society. Homophobia was a SOCIAL NORM even before Christian divine law kicked in, this passage of the Bible reflects it. In Timothy and Corinthians, people who "defile themselves with Mankind" are condemned. This passage is vague, and would not justify homophobia to such an extent. No only could capital "M" Mankind refer to Humanity, but "defile themselves" does not indicate homosexual behavior.

Also you must know that throughout the dark and middle ages the Bible was not available to common folk. All people knew about their religion came from their religious authorities. The Bible was in the hands of the untrustworthy clergy, there are elements of Christian doctrine that don't even come from the Bible. For hundreds of years people have made claims about God's opinion and intentions "God wants us to kill all Muslims", "God rewards those who give us money!". I'm not sure how He feels about that:

GOD IS NOT A TOOL.
Do not use Him as a desperate JUSTIFICATION for questionable actions and hate.

Oh, and read the Bible, you'll notice a lot of things that will make you think twice about being an extremist.

Good news then everyone :-) If a company does not provide a service you want to use then take em to court.

I personally think its wrong that Sayers Bakeries don't have outlets in Canada. Yesterday I was craving a pastie and could not get one. So they are discrimnating via nationality. Equal rights for all. If you feel strongly enough could use the same method for the Zune lol.

Hmm. As someone who's met two wonderful people via eHarmony, and who is also staunchly supportive of homosexual rights, I'm torn on this one. On the one hand, I'm glad that progress is being made toward homosexual people being able to enjoy the same services heterosexual people are, but at the same time...eHarmony is a private business and technically should be allowed to maintain their own policies on who they'll serve. Still, there are already laws in place to protect people from discrimination based on other properties (race, religion, gender...) so it makes perfect sense to add sexual orientation to the list.

However, in the end I think I'm going to have to say that the steps toward equality for a sizable subset of the population are more important than one business being able to do as it pleases. Especially when that subset of the population has endured the kind of violence and harsh treatment that homosexuals have in recent years.

CelticWhisper said,
However, in the end I think I'm going to have to say that the steps toward equality for a sizable subset of the population are more important than one business being able to do as it pleases. Especially when that subset of the population has endured the kind of violence and harsh treatment that homosexuals have in recent years.

So, by your own words, you think the law should be changed for one entity based on the actions of other entities. In other words, other people (say groups A, B, and C) have been violent towards a group of people (homosexuals, gays, whatever word you deem PC), so group D (eHarmony, in this case) should suffer for it.

Interesting...and scary.

Catharsis said,
So, by your own words, you think the law should be changed for one entity based on the actions of other entities. In other words, other people (say groups A, B, and C) have been violent towards a group of people (homosexuals, gays, whatever word you deem PC), so group D (eHarmony, in this case) should suffer for it.

Interesting...and scary.

It is scary. It's scary that even in our supposedly-enlightened society, people treat others with such hostility based on something so arbitrary as sexual preference that we feel the need to regulate businesses and take other actions in order to protect those others from discrimination and prejudice that, by all rights, shouldn't even be there in the first place.

It's a classic example of a few bigoted bad apples ruining it for everyone.

It's sad that lawsuits are required for this sort of thing. So what if Adam and Steve want to be a couple? How does it harm anyone else? I know the religious zealots have a laundry list of excuses, but seriously -- when our lives are endangered constantly, you'd think we'd re-align our perceptions.

I thought most matchmaking websites already did let users find same-sex partners. Why not just have an option that says "I am ___ seeking ___" instead of making a whole new website? And why did they wait for a lawsuit before making same-sex matchmaking possible?

They made it a separate website so as to keep homosexuals separate, as everything they have done to date has shown a deep seated bigotry. Afterall, they can't have homosexuals mixing with "normal" people.

theyarecomingforyou said,
They made it a separate website so as to keep homosexuals separate, as everything they have done to date has shown a deep seated bigotry. Afterall, they can't have homosexuals mixing with "normal" people.

Pardon people for having beliefs. The founders of the website were/are christian. There are other dating websites out there that do have gay match making. There is absolutely no reason why they need to go after this particular one.

I was actually stunned when I read why you were irritated. My heart actually pounds in my chest at the absurdity of this. How in the WORLD does ANY law have a right to dictate what services eHarmony can and cannot provide? That is absolutely ridiculous. I...I just don't know what to say. This is a step in the WRONG direction, and gives precedence to government to dictate what services a DATING site can and cannot provide. Am I the only one seeing the danger of this, or is everyone else totally blind?

Progress? What in the world kind of progress is this, other than government gaining control over private businesses?

so eHarmony should be allowed to give Pedophiles and Rapist a site...I'm sure they are looking for Date's as well....or is it ok for the Government to have the right all of a sudden to block such action.

Sounds like their choices were to either open up and allow same sex postings or stop their service in New Jersey. The more practical was to loosen the application rules.

Granted I think its really stupid that they are making a completely separate site for this instead of just adding more options to the main eHarmony site.

Personally your post makes you sound like a bigot that is mad that same sex couples have a place to find their significant other.

Catharsis, what the government did in this case isn't radical, and it doesn't mean they are aggressively controlling a private business.

It doesn't take any considerable effort to make eHarmony compatible for same-sex couples.

jwjw1 said,
so eHarmony should be allowed to give Pedophiles and Rapist a site...I'm sure they are looking for Date's as well....or is it ok for the Government to have the right all of a sudden to block such action.

Your analogy fails, in that rape and pedophilia are against the law. Homosexuality isn't against the law, and until concrete proof shows otherwise, homosexuality is a choice. With those facts stated, this is a better analogy.

I choose to like thin-crust pizza cut into normal pizza slices. Domino's thin-crust pizza isn't cut into normal pizza slices; therefore, they're discriminating against my preference of how the thin-crust pizza is sliced. Should Domino's be taken to court in New Jersey and be forced to cut their slices normally?

Then there's the matter of law. Unless eHarmony has offices in New Jersey, I don't see how NJ law can affect them.

Personally your post makes you sound like a bigot that is mad that same sex couples have a place to find their significant other.

"Bigot" -- what an ammunition word...and a word that depends on your perspective. Well, you'd probably be right. However, before you start calling people names, are you sure you're not a bigot against those who believe homosexuality to be wrong, and are free to state that? Or are we the only bigots?

Fanon said,
I choose to like thin-crust pizza cut into normal pizza slices. Domino's thin-crust pizza isn't cut into normal pizza slices; therefore, they're discriminating against my preference of how the thin-crust pizza is sliced. Should Domino's be taken to court in New Jersey and be forced to cut their slices normally?

Haha, wow. I was just about to say that I should go to McDonald's and bring them to court for not selling spaghetti and meatballs on their menu. After all, that is my taste, and hey, they're bigots anyway.

Yes, but sometimes laws are necessary to protect against persecution. For instance, after the abolition of segregation employers would have been perfectly justified turning down black people applying for jobs in customer service, on the basis that it would upset some of their white customer base, if it were not for laws preventing such behaviour.

The reality is that it requires very-little-to-no effort for eHarmony to facilitate same-sex matching but they decided not to in opposition of homosexuality - whether that was to appease shareholders or other customers is irrelevant. I am not gay myself but I don't see why businesses should be allowed to discriminate against people based upon their sexuality.

If you can't appreciate why such laws exist then that is very sad.

Catharsis said,
"Bigot" -- what an ammunition word...and a word that depends on your perspective. Well, you'd probably be right. However, before you start calling people names, are you sure you're not a bigot against those who believe homosexuality to be wrong, and are free to state that? Or are we the only bigots?

Nope, the people who wish to impose their personal beliefs about private matters on others are the bigots.

jwjw1 said,
so eHarmony should be allowed to give Pedophiles and Rapist a site...I'm sure they are looking for Date's as well....or is it ok for the Government to have the right all of a sudden to block such action.

Are you equating me with a pedophile or a rapist? If so, I think we have a problem.

Fanon said,
Your analogy fails, in that rape and pedophilia are against the law. Homosexuality isn't against the law, and until concrete proof shows otherwise, homosexuality is a choice. With those facts stated, this is a better analogy.

I choose to like thin-crust pizza cut into normal pizza slices. Domino's thin-crust pizza isn't cut into normal pizza slices; therefore, they're discriminating against my preference of how the thin-crust pizza is sliced. Should Domino's be taken to court in New Jersey and be forced to cut their slices normally?

Then there's the matter of law. Unless eHarmony has offices in New Jersey, I don't see how NJ law can affect them.

So you believe anything to be true until proven false? How about leprechauns and dragons?

jwjw1 said,
so eHarmony should be allowed to give Pedophiles and Rapist a site...I'm sure they are looking for Date's as well....or is it ok for the Government to have the right all of a sudden to block such action.

Pedophiles and Rapists do things that are against the law. so that doesn't count you ********. And btw, there are allot more Straight Pedos and rapists than homo ones.

jwjw1 said,
so eHarmony should be allowed to give Pedophiles and Rapist a site...I'm sure they are looking for Date's as well....or is it ok for the Government to have the right all of a sudden to block such action.

jwjw1 said,
so eHarmony should be allowed to give Pedophiles and Rapist a site...I'm sure they are looking for Date's as well....or is it ok for the Government to have the right all of a sudden to block such action.

oops posted something that was incorrect. And I'm sorry for what I said (if it got through). I agree with you. +1 to you.

theyarecomingforyou said,
Yes, but sometimes laws are necessary to protect against persecution. For instance, after the abolition of segregation employers would have been perfectly justified turning down black people applying for jobs in customer service, on the basis that it would upset some of their white customer base, if it were not for laws preventing such behaviour.

The reality is that it requires very-little-to-no effort for eHarmony to facilitate same-sex matching but they decided not to in opposition of homosexuality - whether that was to appease shareholders or other customers is irrelevant. I am not gay myself but I don't see why businesses should be allowed to discriminate against people based upon their sexuality.

If you can't appreciate why such laws exist then that is very sad.

I think you need to double check what is and isn't persecution. Not providing a service is not the same as denying access to a service. There's a world of difference between saying "I wont sell oranges to Native Americans" and "I wont sell oranges to Native Americans because I only sell apples". This service was open to anyone; just because not everyone finds it useful doesn't make it come even close to prosecution and you can't even compare it something like segregation.

No, the reality is that the government strong-armed a private company into creating a completely new service because it was PC to do so. *sigh* This isn't discrimination! I wish people would stop using that word so pervasively in their arguments without understanding what the hell it means.

GreyWolfSC said,
So you believe anything to be true until proven false? How about leprechauns and dragons?


We live in a country where we can pick and choose what we want to believe, and if I wanted to believe in leprechauns and dragons, I would. Your question is meaningless.

Vlad said,
No, the reality is that the government strong-armed a private company into creating a completely new service because it was PC to do so. *sigh*

Wrong. It was a dating service, one that didn't allow for same-sex relationships. It's nothing like a fruit vendor not selling oranges - the core product was the same but the dating service accepted heterosexuals and rejected homosexuals. Clearly the legal system's application of the law deemed it to be discriminatory.

I find it sad that people want to defend bigotry.

Fanon said,
We live in a country where we can pick and choose what we want to believe, and if I wanted to believe in leprechauns and dragons, I would. Your question is meaningless.

It is not meaningless. If you choose to believe in leprechauns and dragons does not make them a reality, just as your belief that homosexuality is a choice does not make it true.

theyarecomingforyou said,
Wrong. It was a dating service, one that didn't allow for same-sex relationships. It's nothing like a fruit vendor not selling oranges - the core product was the same but the dating service accepted heterosexuals and rejected homosexuals. Clearly the legal system's application of the law deemed it to be discriminatory.

I find it sad that people want to defend bigotry.

Except for in this case this person (or group of persons) is pushing their views and opinions on others when they don't need to. There are other dating sites that cater specifically to gay people. Why not use one of them?

GreyWolfSC said,
It is not meaningless. If you choose to believe in leprechauns and dragons does not make them a reality, just as your belief that homosexuality is a choice does not make it true.

And a belief that it isn't a choice does not make it true, either. So yes, it is meaningless.

trag3dy said,
. There are other dating sites that cater specifically to gay people. Why not use one of them?

you are right, it should also be ok to limit a dating sites to white only. and while you are at it limit black people to specific seats in buses...

Fanon said,
And a belief that it isn't a choice does not make it true, either. So yes, it is meaningless.

you are wrong but you will only figure that out once you realize the world is actually NOT flat. Good luck with that!
(it's sphere shaped btw)

PROGAME said,
you are right, it should also be ok to limit a dating sites to white only. and while you are at it limit black people to specific seats in buses...

There's a service called JDate which is oriented towards finding dates between Jewish people, and there are dating services oriented towards black communities and Asian communities. I find nothing wrong with that.

Black and Asian dating sites are forced by law to accept white people, but IMO thats stupid. What if like there are Jewish dating sites someone wanted to open a Christian dating site--you really think they should be forced by government to match people in relationships that fall outside what they believe in?

The only thing different about a white dating site is it would raise some eyebrows because people don't think its necessary to have a dating site for white people in a white dominated population. But if there was a company doing matchmaking and only had an office in a white neighborhood, a court couldn't force them to also open an office in a black neighborhood in order to serve everyone equally.

Cases like this are one of the reasons religious groups oppose same sex marriage laws btw--they're afraid that the government will make churches marry gay people or else charge them with discrimination. "When Gay Rights and Religious Liberties Collide"-- http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.p...toryId=91486191

People need to step back and ask who is pushing their beliefs on whom.

There is a difference between individuals and types of relationships and the law should treat it differently.

jwjw1 said,
so eHarmony should be allowed to give Pedophiles and Rapist a site...I'm sure they are looking for Date's as well....or is it ok for the Government to have the right all of a sudden to block such action.

Comparing homosexuality to pedophilia and rape is extremely stupid. Homosexuality is not illegal. You are a complete moron.

Fanon said,
Your analogy fails, in that rape and pedophilia are against the law. Homosexuality isn't against the law, and until concrete proof shows otherwise, homosexuality is a choice. With those facts stated, this is a better analogy.

I choose to like thin-crust pizza cut into normal pizza slices. Domino's thin-crust pizza isn't cut into normal pizza slices; therefore, they're discriminating against my preference of how the thin-crust pizza is sliced. Should Domino's be taken to court in New Jersey and be forced to cut their slices normally?

Then there's the matter of law. Unless eHarmony has offices in New Jersey, I don't see how NJ law can affect them.


You know what fails? You do.

People don't actually choose to like anything. They like things because it is a preference that they have, either due to a trait they were born with, or something/someone has influenced them into liking it, usually during childhood.

Do you CHOOSE to not like certain things that you eat, or do you just not like them?

My guess would be the latter. There is plenty of concrete proof to say homosexuality is not a choice. Are you saying all homosexuals are liars? Also, there is no "concrete proof" to say that homosexuality IS a choice, so therefore it is not a fact. You are extremely narrow minded and not very well informed.

PROGAME said,
you are wrong but you will only figure that out once you realize the world is actually NOT flat. Good luck with that!
(it's sphere shaped btw)

I'm wrong? Prove it.

Mikeyx11 said,
Are you saying all homosexuals are liars? Also, there is no "concrete proof" to say that homosexuality IS a choice, so therefore it is not a fact.

I never said it was fact. I said there was no proof that homosexuality is hereditary or gene-based. Granted, I should've added "I think" or "I believe" in the sentence to differentiate fact from opinion. But considering GreyWolfSC saw the distinction, I'll assume that my wording is just fine.

As for lying, I know some homosexuals that said they chose that path. I know other homosexuals that say they didn't. Are the latter liars? From my viewpoint, yes.

Fanon said,
I never said it was fact. I said there was no proof that homosexuality is hereditary or gene-based. Granted, I should've added "I think" or "I believe" in the sentence to differentiate fact from opinion. But considering GreyWolfSC saw the distinction, I'll assume that my wording is just fine.

As for lying, I know some homosexuals that said they chose that path. I know other homosexuals that say they didn't. Are the latter liars? From my viewpoint, yes.

First of all, I would like to congratulate you for not responding in an aggressive and immature way, it seems there aren't many who can do this (inc. me sometimes).

Secondly, I think homosexuality is genetic. Why? If there are twins, and one is homosexual, there is a ~50% chance the other is going to be homosexual as well. There are also studies that show that there are genetic differences between homosexuals and heterosexuals.

If you care to add to your knowledge:
- http://www.libchrist.com/other/homosexual/gaygene.html
- http://discovermagazine.com/2007/jun/born-gay

Also, why would anyone in their right mind CHOOSE to live a life that could possibly result in them being disowned by their family, bullied at school, discriminated at work and possibly even killed just because of their sexual orientation? There are many homosexuals that spend their entire lives wishing they were straight, just so they can live a normal life, and in many cases resulting in them taking their own lives. You can't tell me that anyone would choose this pain and suffering over a life of normality and fitting in.