eHarmony Succumbs to Gay Pressure Group
EHarmony dating service has been bullied into offering their services to gay people. You know how it starts. A lawsuit is filed or a state commission opens an investigation and then comes the threat. The threat is that the persecution will persist and you'll go broke fighting us so you might as well give us what we want.
According to World Net Daily:
Internet dating service eHarmony has officially agreed to begin matching homosexual couples, beginning next year.You've got to love it. The bullies kick the company around so much until the company starts apologizing for getting blood on the bully's kicking boots. And then the bullies kick a little more until the company offers to pay for new kicking boots. It's a disgrace.
The popular California-based service has been known for focusing on long-term relationships, especially marriage, which has been said to align with founder Clark Warren's early work with Focus on the Family's evangelical Christian base and perspective.
Warren, a psychologist with a divinity degree, has had three of his 10 books on love and dating published by Focus on the Family. It was an appearance on James Dobson's radio program, in 2001, that triggered a response of 90,000 new referrals to the website, starting a climb of registered participants on the site from 4,000 to today's 20 million clients.
As WND reported, the company originally said it was "based on the Christian principles of Focus on the Family author Dr. Neil Clark Warren." It stood firm on its decision to reject homosexuals from its profiling and matching services. Its entire compatibility system is based on research of married heterosexual couples.
In 2005, Warren told USA Today the company's goal is marriage and that same-sex marriage is illegal in most states.
"We don't really want to participate in something that's illegal," he said.
But now the company has been compelled to changed its nationwide policy as part of a New Jersey lawsuit settlement.
On March 14, 2005, Eric McKinley filed a lawsuit against eHarmony, claiming the company discriminated against him when it refused to accept his advertisement for a "gay" partner.
McKinley's complaint triggered a state investigation into the dating service.
Last week, eHarmony agreed to begin providing an eHarmony-affiliated "Compatible Partners" service to gays and lesbians, with listings labeled "male seeking male" and "female seeking female" by March 31, 2009.
For complying, the New Jersey Division on Civil Rights has dismissed the complaint against eHarmony, and Warren is considered "absolved of liability." Also, the dating site has been ordered to pay the division $50,000 for investigation-related administrative costs and give McKinley $5,000. It has agreed to provide a free one-year membership to its "gay" service to McKinley, plus free six-month memberships to "the first 10,000 users registering for same-sex matching within one year of the initiation on the same-sex matching service," according to the settlement.
The moral of this is that morals are disallowed from the public sphere and if you don't like it, say something. They dare you. Because you might be next.
33 comments:
This is a tragedy.
Would you believe we actually had a decent column on this matter here in the Bay State? Despite the surname, he's not Catholic, but he's definitely got his head screwed on straight. It might even deserve its own thread. Props to Joe Fitzgerald. Naturally, this article did not appear in The Globe.
http://www.bostonherald.com/news/columnists/view/2008_11_19_‘Cultural_War__won_at_democracy_s_cost/
You know, somehow in this world we've got well intentioned people who are trying to be good getting very confused. I actually had a Muslim tell me she thought we should be past the debate on abortion, even though she thought it wrong. The Left seems to think they can just make our conscience and our morality obsolete - and the worst thing is, we're letting them.
Simple solution: eHarmony should close up shop. If they're a Christian organization, it's better to do that than accept money for sinful aberrant behaviour.
Gay brownshirts on the march!
Tito, wouldn't those shirts be pink?
It's very troubling that private enterprises are pressured into accepting the modern sexual ethos. It shows that many view this as a civil rights issue, when in fact it isn't. And if enough people think it's a civil rights issue, there's no end to the coercion deemed justifiable. That's why I think their arguments fall flat when SSM advocates say, "Oh, we'd never take legal action against churches for denying same sex marriage!"
Every hope we have in America, gradually dwindles: it isn't even an economic leader any longer, sad that the rest of us have to be hurt by your cultural problem. As with this financial crisis, which will lose 100 000 000 of our people their jobs, while your economy is bailed out. It is not fair: it's indirect murder, and the murder which retains Africa as a warlike continent!
Yeah, this sounds like Jersey politics. I apologize on behalf of my state of residence.
Since its business model was designed to foster marriages, they may have... difficulty... with the new clientèle.
The worst part will be later on, when the company can no longer claim "such and such" high level of successful matchings, which might drive away people who could benefit from help finding a spouse.
Here again it drives home the point that language is important - if eHarmony advertises that they provide marriage matching for heterosexuals and uh, "relationship"(?) matching for homosexuals, they're going to get handed another court order.
Even their wiki page says "matches men and women with compatible singles of the opposite sex". That algorithm is going to completely fail when applied to homosexuals.
This simply doesn't surprise me. A bunch of folks in California, including that one man who resigned from his post at a theatre (remember him?), after being put on the Gay Rights Enemy List have simply made a donation to gay activist groups equivalent to the amount they gave to the proposition 8 campaign.
And now they're off the list. All they needed to do was make one simple compromise...freaking cowards...
There was an enemies list? Wow. Now the violent reaction to the prayer vigil is entirely in character within context.
Lists are the tool of tyranny, and often of violence. This is worrisome.
~Zee
Frankly, I can't imagine why a community that has recourse to exclusive services of their own would want to force the issue with anyone else, unless they are so determined to make their point that they have found a way to bully others. Yes, that's all this is -- bullying.
The founder of eHarmony had always maintained that their system of matching was based on data accumulated from the experience of heterosexual married couples, and that there was simply not enough data on "married" gay couples to do the same. It seems that this wasn't convincing to a judge.
On the bright side (and I believe some respondents have missed this), the same-sex matching service would be provided under a separate brand.
"Last week, eHarmony agreed to begin providing an eHarmony-affiliated 'Compatible Partners' service to gays and lesbians, with listings labeled 'male seeking male' and 'female seeking female' by March 31, 2009."
It stands to reason that the service would be provided on a separate website. The integrity of the eHarmony brand would be preserved. So it's a partial victory for the "gay community" at best, and the company might be in a position to discontinue the service, if they can establish that it is not profit-making.
I wouldn't go for such a thing myself.
Not that there's anything wrong with...oh wait. There is.
The bigger problem is that people will allow this to happen because most have no solid sense of principle. The vast majority of people who use eHarmony and disagree with this will still continue to use the site for the service and convenience it offers rather than do the honorable thing and deactivate their accounts. Most people place personal convenience, among many other self-interests, far above principle, integrity, and morals. So why shouldn't eHarmony cave in to this pressure and comply with the bullies' demands? It's not as if they will lose any significant business by doing so. Until people stand up for what is right and place principle above self-interest (which most never will), this garbage will continue full steam ahead.
"So why shouldn't eHarmony cave in to this pressure and comply with the bullies' demands?"
They were taken to court. They lost. If the additional service is on a separate site, most people won't know the difference. To boycott them for being forced against their will to comply will only encourage bullies to do this to someone else.
Now, before you respond, think this through to its conclusion. What would you realistically expect eHarmony to do that they could get away with?
Other than shut down. And who would that help?
There are numerous gays-only dating sites. The demand for "tolerance" quickly turned into "approval" which is quickly turning into something even further. Requiring people to serve gays against their own moral objections. So much for just wanting to be free. Now they are imposing their will on everyone else. Tolerant people are so intolerant.
"and who would that help?"
It would help the homo's by not supporting or encouraging their sickness. These people are mentally sick and need help. It is not right to hate them as persons but it is right to not give them an inch when they are acting immoral.
Can I ask a question? Why would you care if eHarmony does business with homosexuals.
So you "Christians" won't deal with any business that deals with homosexuals. Would you not eat at McDonald's because they sell hamburgers to gay people? I don't understand your point. It's not like they're forcing you to have a gay relationship. They asked for an online dating service and they got one. Sure, they filed a lawsuit but that's the American Way. EHarmony must have known they were going to lose. Doesn't that tell you something?
Anonymous, I don't think the issue is whether or not people want to do business with homosexuals. It's that there was a particular service offered for a particular group of individuals/market. It's like a woman's shoe manufacturer being sued because they don't put out mens's sizes. In a free market economy, ANY business should be free to make decisions that effect their business with regards to the target market they are aiming for.
This was just plain wrong.
It's like a woman's shoe manufacturer being sued because they don't put out mens's sizes.
Transvestites should sue!!!
Anonymous, you've missed the point.
There's nothing wrong with doing business with homosexuals. But there is something seriously sinful about helping people to imitate and redefine marriage through same sex relationships. The sexual orientation of the clients doesn't mean a thing. It's just as wrong for a company to facilitate heterosexuals in entering same-sex "marriages" as it is homosexuals.
It's a sin for Christians to refuse business with someone solely because of their sexual orientation. No one said that Christians should refuse business to homosexuals or boycott organizations who offer their goods and services to homosexuals. On the other hand, I can't fault anyone who refuses to support a business actively tries to redefine marriage by any means (e.g. promoting no-fault divorce, or promiscuity within marriage, or gay "marriage", etc.).
Gays have many options in online dating services. Chemistry.com, for example, makes a killing by attuning their service to people who aren't necessarily looking for a relationship that leads to marriage including same sex relationships.
A quick Google search reveals several exclusively gay dating services. What would the public reaction be if courts forced them to offer their services to people seeking heterosexual relationships?
There difference is obvious. It's not about requiring a company to do business with someone, it's about asking a business to change its product to accommodate someone.
There difference is obvious. It's not about requiring a company to do business with someone, it's about asking a business to change its product to accommodate someone.
Actually, if I understand the matter, it's not about asking a business to do anything. It's about telling them they must do something they had not wished to do - and threatening them with an 'or else!'
That doesn't make me think of the word 'freedom.'
jj
You're right, John. I was being too polite by saying that they are "asking" for the change.
What would you realistically expect eHarmony to do that they could get away with?
Other than shut down. And who would that help?
Applying your logic to my own home state (In Australia), Catholic hospitals have been ordered to provide abortion services or at least direct and 'effective' referrals to an abortion service. So your logic would suggest that the Catholics build a 'seperate' building where they can formally cooperate in evil abortions so that they can still do the good work in the rest of the hospital. After all, it's only a little bit of murder to tolerate for a good cause isn't it?
Reveation 13:7
It was allowed to wage war against the saints and to conquer them.
It = queers.
Peter:
Has Cardinal Pell told the Government to sod off yet?
Yeah, that's my logic. Truth is, I just don't get as excited about this stuff as I do abortion. Besides, I wouldn't be surprised if the new business line fails. What can the court do, order it to turn a profit?
Which is why I think they'll appeal. That's my logic too.
An unjust law is not a law.
There shouldn't be a "compatible partners" site. It ought to be
wgud3figty36k5fddhsxngktleelsogn23djfgutysckg2hlgojo23gid.com
He also ought to set it up to make sure that gays who use the site get the exact opposite of what they are looking for. There is no guarantee of quality, because they haven't done any research on what gays want.
So they ought to make it hard to type, impossible to find on a search engine and make is suck.
Try suing them for that!
1. I am a lesbian.
2. Frankly, I don't care if gay marriage ever passes. I believe that marriage is a promise that cannot be broken. You speak those words, and make that commitment with only one thought in mind, "til death do us part".
What does bother me, is how individuals can be so bullheaded about the "Sanctity" of marriage when there is a preponderance of DIVORCE in the USA.
When two people who just met 5 minutes prior can walk up, no, DRIVE UP to a chapel and for a small chunk of change, get married, I'd say there is no sanctity. I would like THAT outlawed if there is any HOPE on saving the Sanctity of Marriage.
Where is your sanctity when 8 out of 10 men say they have cheated on their spouses?
Where is your sanctity when people get married because they "have to"?
Where is your sanctity when people continue to get married based on the sole idea that love is all you need?
The media has made it very conveinient to fall in love and get married. Thereby also making divorce an even easier reality.
Indeed, love is NOT all you need. There must be compassion, communication, understanding and a willingness to fight the battles together, and not run at the first sign of a problem.
We aren't taught to look past the horse-drawn carriage and Prince Charming in the white castle to what lies ahead. We are a society happy with the here and now. This is also why we have the highest credit debt and obesity per capita, but don't let me go off on that tangent.
3. It was only in the past 100 years that I recall women were allowed to vote, being that they were inferior and according to the Bible, should not have a voice.
I just wanted to say that most of you are correct in stating that eHarmony should not be foreced to provide a gay website. That is why there is freedom of choice.
I just had to correct a few of your misconceptions of reality while I was agreeing with you on that.
Ciao!
As a gay Catholic, I want to weigh in on obligating eHarmony to open a gay dating service. I think it's wrong. It violates basic market principles, even without appealing to morality.
I do have a question, though, for many of the posters here. I detect not just opposition to a policy but hate. Please don't tell me you 'love' homosexuals. That's a crock if you do not also LIKE homosexuals. How many of you count gay men and/or women as friends...as persons you go out to lunch with, people whose lives you know, with whom you've dialogued. That is the essence of Christian love.
Kevin: Disagreeing with, or disapproving of, the choices of another, is not the same thing as hating them. For what it's worth, I've had a number of gay friends and associates over the years. Fortunately, we've managed to find other things to talk about besides sex.
Speaking the Truth is the essence of love, as St Paul told the Corinthians that love rejoices in it. Hate the sin, love the sinner. It can happen. It happened here.
Of course, David, but the emphasis should be on loving the sinner. When Jesus ate with tax collectors and prostitutes, I think he loved them into wholeness, not lectured them about their evil ways.
That sounds like precisely what you have done with your gay friends and associates over the years. You avoid lecturing them about their "lifestyle" and love them as individuals. Bravo!
Post a Comment