Good.

Not so sure, as the data pool would be a lot more skimpy and hardly adequate as comparable to hetero-marriage couples. It’s a shame that hook-up services grounded in spiritual roots are forced to abandon their principles to accommodate same-sex couples, even though there was probably no solid evidence that eHarmony was discriminatory. What next? Will modeling agencies have to accommodate cross-dressing models? After all, how can they possibly afford to discriminate against these beautiful people?!?
This country is going to hell in a hand basket faster than the speed of light!!! God help us all

Until recently I didn’t know E-Harmony was a “Christian” owned dating site. Well now they get to expand their “Christian” values by launching the site for gays and lesbians. I think they were afraid of losing a law suit. As Olsen said, litigation outcomes can be unpredictable.

The world is going crazy people can force their beliefs on free enterprise it’s a sad day when homosewuals can twist people’s arms and force them to do what they don’t agree to. I feel for e harmony I don’t believe they should have caved.

“The world is going crazy people can force their beliefs on free enterprise ”
So true. Do you realize that black people can waltz into any restaurant in this country and demand to be served!?! Damn those equal access laws that force people to compromise their sacred beliefs and interfere with the running of their businesses!

How did the people mid-sixties and up ever find their loved ones without a dating service? I can’t remember having any trouble. My brother never had any trouble, and we never sat around complaining about how we would ever find the right person. Crazy.

Do you realize being Black and wanting to have sex with the same sex is totally different, no comparison.

cknuck, I know I’m repeating myself, but there is no excuse for depriving part of the population of equal rights just like there was no excuse for depriving Black citizens of their rights.

OK, As you know, I am all for equal rights in every way possible. However, I do find it difficult to deal with private companies forced to comply with things they are not otherwise planning to do. Something about this feels inappropriate. I guess if there is a need for a gay dating site, then the folks doing the looking ought to make their own. I guess I am favoring equal rights for private businesses that do not serve a public or health and safety function to make some choices on their own. Drawing that line is more art than science, but this feels over the line.

jestrfyl-
I probably would have been surprised by your post in view of the thousands of other posts of your I have read. Except, my initial thoughts were the same as yours.
However, in relationship to my values….my thoughts did not seem right. After doing some soul-searching…..I have no doubt that my initial thought were a result of the last remnants of my internalized homophobia.
After ponder for a while….my true thoughts match those of sinsote: “Do you realize that black people can waltz into any restaurant in this country and demand to be served!?! Damn those equal access laws that force people to compromise their sacred beliefs and interfere with the running of their businesses!

I think this is really the difference between holding personal beliefs and prejudice, discrimination, and bigotry.
If Neil Clark Warren (or, anyone else) thinks that homosexuality is wrong or even sinful….I have no problem with that. That would be his (their) personal belief.
When he (or, anyone else) treats gays/lesbians (blacks, Hispanics, Asians, Jews, Muslims, pagans, etc) differently than other people…or, advocates for different rules/laws, etc for different groups of people…then, that is prejudice, discrimination, and bigotry.
Peace!

The main issue that I have with this ruling is twofold: this is a private dating service. There are dating services exclusively for African-Americans such as African American Dating Network, exclusively for Catholics such as Catholic Match, even exclusively for Republicans such as Republican Passions. Guess what? There are sites exclusively for gay people such as Pride Dating. The dating site of eHarmony, IMO, is no different than these sites.
The other reason I have for not supporting this decision is exactly as he says on his site: Based on his 35 years of marriage counseling and studies of thousands of married couples, eHarmony founder Dr. Neil Clark Warren exhaustively researched what makes marriages succeed and fail. His findings? Chemistry is not enough. Almost all marriages start out with good chemistry, yet 3 out of 4 couples end up unhappy or divorced. His expertise is in studying heterosexual married couples. He does not have the experience nor the ability to say that the same things that apply to heterosexual long term relationships apply to same sex long term relationships. To force him to use the same in depth studies that he used in the thousands of sessions that he witnessed and cut and paste them to the GLBT community is unethical for both Dr. Warren and for the GLBT community.
What if we in the GLBT community actually do have different views on what makes a successful relationship? We don’t have hundreds of years of gay dating manuals, social structures, mores, etc., that heterosexuals have set up over the years. What if his studies don’t work for the GLBT community? What if he can’t boast the same success rate on Compatible Partners as he does on eHarmony? Two things would happen, in my opinion:
1.) Religious conservatives can use it to show that we are inadequate when it comes to creating long term relationships. They would be able to say that given the same access to the same questions and same profiles and same technology and psycho-analytic tests, they have shown that they are not as successful as heterosexuals when it comes to creating stable partnerships.
2.) The GLBT community will have failed itself on what was a false hope. eHarmony is successful because it is based on serious scientific research, not a picture and a paragraph. 29 categories of personality traits, beliefs, and other traits are what set eHarmony aside from other sites. That is why he can boast such a high success rate. The GLBT community will be going into this expecting the same success rate due to this fact. If it does not pan out, then we, the GLBT community, will be not simply demoralized, but will also begin to winder, “What if they’re right? What if we aren’t good enough? What if we really, really, really, are just what they say we are?”
m.e.graves, the poster formerly known as I_Like_Dragyn

pagan you consistently target Blacks to support you homosexual argument without regard for a race you are not a part of yet as Whites of the brutal past you feel entitled to speak for us. I understand why you feel entitled.
(blacks, Hispanics, Asians, Jews, Muslims, pagans, etc)
JohnQ taking one look at how your attempt to equate sexuality with nationality I see you use “blacks” lower cased and it is interesting from a psychoanalytical point of view because you include other nationalities but “blacks” hold a distinctively different value.
Regardless when people try to blur the lines and confuse issues between nationalities and sexuality is less than honorable especially if it is not you nationality or culture.

In my eyes, cknuck, there is no difference in the fight for rights. I’m to young to remember the fight the Irish, or Chinese, or some of the other immigrants to this country had to fight to get, but remember those of the Black citizens. I find no difference in the fight for equal rights for those who are not heterosexual and the rights all others had to fight for in this country. What is a shame is that anyone HAS to fight for what the U.S. Constitution grants them. You’re right…I’m not Black. ). BTW, why do you think I feel “intitled”. I’m merely speaking what I think.

cknuck-
First out of my esteem for you, I began a few years ago (at your request) avoiding equating the struggle lgbt people are going through for equal rights with the struggle blacks have experienced. As you have pointed out several times, the argument for equality can be made without citing the experience of black people.
Yesterday, I did group: gays/lesbians, blacks, Hispanics, Asians, Jews, Muslims, pagans, etc together in a point I was attempting to make regarding prejudice, discrimination, and bigotry. I still believe that it was appropriate to do so as my point was about prejudice, discrimination, and bigotry….not blacks and gays having a shared experience.
Second, as for as your point on capitalization….you are attempting to find a slight that is not there. The last several years, I have attempted to be more correct in my use of grammar and capitalization. This has become even more important to me now that we have kids. If you check a dictionary you will find that when referencing a group of people be they: black, brown, red, yellow, or white….unless the word begins a sentence….a lower case letter is correct. When referencing a group with the words: African-American, Asian, Hispanic, Caucasian, etc the word should be capitalized.
You may have noticed that I also did not capitalize pagan….this was not intended as a slight to pagans…..many of whom I hold in high regard…such as pagansister. Rather, again the word pagan is correctly used with a lower case “p” unless it begins a sentence. Where as: Christian, Jew, Hindu, Muslim, etc should all be capitalized.
Third, when I reference blacks (Hispanics, Asians, Jews, Muslims, pagans, gays/lesbians, straights, etc) I am not suggesting that I am speaking for them any more than I would be speaking for all white, Christians, bisexuals when I reference them. First and foremost, I am a human being. I find that as a human being I have far more in common with all other human beings that I have differences with others. In any group of people whether grouped by skin color, religion, or sexuality….there is a wide, wide, wide variation of beliefs. Suggesting that all ______________ think the same on just about any particular topic is silly.
As an example, I find that I share far more beliefs and values with nnms and pagansister than I do with many/most Christians. Further, I find I understand your beliefs (even those where we strongly disagree) far more deeply than I understand those of m.e.graves. I suspect it is because we are much closer in age….and, while we may have different experiences of occurrences in the last 40+ years…we both experienced those occurrences.
Peace!

One of the things I liked about MLK is that although he did study Gandhi, King never overshadowed Gandhi’s struggle or achievements with our struggles. That is character something many homosexual supporters do not display as they try desperately to vampire the African American story.
I was admiring the new movie about the boy in the stripe pajamas; not a year goes by where movies about the holocaust comes into the movie market yet our story is rarely told and now the attempt to blend our heritage into the homosexual story is sucking even more of our history from us, its another form of slavery. In pagan’s eyes there is no difference she said so, but in mind there is a huge difference and it is not about sexuality.
As for eHarmony founder Neil Clark Warren,how passionate can he be if he is willing to bend his character to the world’s desires.

cknuck,____What are you talking about? MLK found parallels between the struggles of Indians and South Africans against colonialism and the struggle of black Americans against Jim Crow and segregation. Gays and lesbians find parallels between the Civil Rights movement and the movement for marriage equality and full legal acceptance. The supposed “overshadowing’ occurs only in the minds of those unwilling to take freedom and dignity to their logical conclusions.____BTW, If any group of Americans should understand the desire of gays and lesbians to marry and protect their families, it should be African-americans. In slavery, black men and women were denied the benefit of both court house and church. Those held in slavery often times married themselves in the presence of the community (jumping the broom). Despite their commitment, black slaves had no legal standing, and their families were routinely brocken up: husbands seperated from wives

sinsonte that is in your opinion as a homosexual white male who understands very little of African American culture or heritage. I expect no more than from you so I rarely respond to your post. ____JohnQ I really appreciate you, your culture and refinement is gentle and genuinely attempts to be understanding but in a refined way you are saying the same thing as pagan. I personally find it hard to be a Christian and say the same thing as the world says, Jesus often spoke of that very fact. __

Cknuck,
It’s fine for you to have your beliefs but to advocate that I follow them when I am an adult capable of making my own decisions is absurd. Follow your religion but stop trying to force others to.

I have used a vote, but never force. It is useless to respond to some statements
Force is spray painting people’s homes who express their vote and making a mess in front of Mormon churches, forcing match making sites to go outside of their beliefs through legal harassment.

cknuck,
I’m not white. (BTW, you didn’t capitalize “white.” Are we to read anything into this?)

I struggle with this. I am an absolute advocate for freedom of AND for AND from religion. I do not think one groups beliefs should be imposed on another. eHarmony is fairly clear that they represent a particular perspective. That is why there are other groups advertising on TV that their members were not rejected by eHarmony. So if they are up front about their perspective and do not provide a public service, I think they need to be free to work as they choose. I also believe that groups that do want to be open have as much right to do so.
Sometimes being open to all means having to support the position of groups with whom I would not otherwise agree or associate. If this were a racial question people would be lining up in support of forcing eHarmony to comply. However, because it is sexual people are willing to close doors they might otherwise kick open. This makes me uncomfortable. I guess I believe that it is important to support open and inclusive groups, businesses and communities.
I believe that those who exclude and close their doors to particular groups will ultimately wither and fail. Nature has a preference for diversity – if God is accepted as the Creator of nature, then it is easy to understand God’s prefence for diversity.
It is not an easy place to stand, but here I am nonetheless.

The article states that in NJ Harmony was not following the anti-discrimination law when they refused to let the gay people mix with the heterosexuals on their service. So Harmony set up a connected service called Compatible Partners, so they would comply with New Jerseys law. They are making more money than ever now, and I don’t think they will complain about this turn of events. Everyone else should be so lucky!

There is no discrimination if they are appealing to a certain group, I know if I were looking and ran across a homosexual in a dating service I would never come back and in that sense it is clear they will lose money and if it was about money in the first place and not about quality then they would have went there. Jersey’s law is clearly wrong e just don’t want to spend the money to continue the fight, but I would.

You don’t believe in anti-discrimination in companies, do you cknuck? If it happened and did for many years with the black race, it wasn’t right. Why should it be not right now the way NJ has set it’s laws?

There’s a difference H22 if you didn’t notice between race and sexuality. I know you would rather ignore that fact but that still does not change the truth.

I think some white people are so ashamed about what their relatives did to African Americans that they want to over compensate by regarding homosexuals as a race. Most of them still violate African Americans just as their relatives did and do by their causal use of our heritage, they don’t have that right just like they don’t have regard.

I understand how you reason because of your religious beliefs. I don’t reason as you do with mine. Because of this we come to different conclusions. I know without a doubt that Homosexuality is an inherent part of these people, just as heterosexuality is to us. All Medical Fields agree on this. I don’t think that people who had relatives, way back, in the 1800′s feel guilt for slavery, they had nothing to do with it. I think they feel sadness about it, and many of them probably have worked to help with integration from the 60′s on though. You have a great heritage, and you and all of us should be proud of it. The thing that is important and that draws parallels is in the justice part of our American system; that, being equal under our Constitution. They must become as equal in rights as we are. It has nothing to do with anyones religion.

Why would I compensate for something my relatives did or might have done to a person who was Black? That’s like trying to compensate for my relatives in England who might have mistreated the Irish when they were all in England and Ireland. I wasn’t there as I wasn’t even born yet, so why would I take on the blame? That’s silly. What they did has nothing to do with me.

Kind of a pattern there pagan, and my point is that pattern shows up when you repeatedly with privilege equate African American heritage with homosexuality, it’s the same as slavery, ownership to do with what you will. Find something in your own heritage to equate with homosexuality, or anyone else’s and stop harping on and detracting from our heritage, you really don’t get that right with the history between our people, but you continue to take without regard.
Homosexuality is about sexuality; prove these guys should share holy matrimony as husband and wife on its own merits, not on the back of African American heritage. Pretty simple but if you can’t do it then I guess you will have to play the shell game with our heritage because you have no argument to base your point.

Seems like we have been over this subject before, cknuck.
The fight for equal rights for homosexuals is only, only and I repeat, only for equality. The way I see the it, the Black struggle in the USA was for..yes, you guessed it! Equality. Equality has nothing to do with sexuality. At least that is the way I see it…and you disagree, so we can agree to disagree.
All legal folks in this country, no matter what their color, religion, sexual preferences, country of origin etc., have a right to be treated equally….simple.

In this case you are wrong because as a man or a woman homosexuals are very equal and if they are white perhaps they enjoy advantages. The fight here is to change the definition of marriage from husband and wife to something else, that’s not fighting for equality, and it is totally different. Yes we have been over this before you have tried to use African American heritage to promote your homosexual agenda to try to change marriage, its not about not being able to eat at the same counter as whites, its not about being murdered raped sold for slavery not about being breed to be a better slave in a particular slave work area, not about being legally lynched because you are property, not about your place o worship being bombed, not about being denied education, or being able to get medical help because hospitals are white only, and the list goes on, that’s what our heritage and fight was about. Homosexuals get sex change operations freely where my mother died from a simple ailment because she could not go to a white only hospital.
This is a stupid argument that men should be able to marry men and change the part of marriage “husband and wife” to mean something else. It’s stupid selfish and vain especially when homosexuals have the right under civil unions that they do, and the people have voted to keep marriage between “husband and wife.”
You see something so simple as you define in your post because you are on the outside looking in with little care outside of your homosexual agenda, but as a African American I know different, and as a culturally sensitive person I know you don’t get that right.

The fact is as ps and I keep repeating: EQUALITY FOR ALL CITIZENS OF AMERICA! This is what their fight is all about. If you think this changes anything between married heterosexuals, think again, because it doesn’t. My husband and I are married 56 yrs., and when they become completely equal in rights as our Constitution reads, we will still have a wonderful 56 yrs. together. To stop anyone from having the equal rights that you enjoy is really being selfish.

Civil Unions don’t grant the same rights as Marriage does, cknuck. Thus not equal.

pagan What rights do civil unions exclude?
H22 congrats on the 56yrs but you don’t speak for all married folk, look at the vote; you were out voted.

It’s not legal to buy someones civil rights away from them, Ck. It is darn right unAmerican.

sounds like sour grapes to me considering both sides spent the same amount of money.

cknuck, many things are excluded in a civil union:
1) Civil marriages are respected by all states in the US, but not civil unions.
2) Can’t get divorced or end a civil union in all states but you can with a civil marriage.
3) A 1997 GAO report lists 1,049 civil marriage protections and responsibilities from the Fed’s, a few are …leave from work to care for a family member, social security survivor benefits, and many others, income tax status (filing jointly) and others that addup to the rest of the 1,049. Those and the others are not protected by a civil union.
Children can be taken away from a civil union spouse should one spouse die, by bio family members…not so in a civil marriage.
All adds up to “civil union” is not equal to that “hallowed )” word… civil marriage.
All people in this country are entitled by the US Constitution to have equality.

Henrietta, my turn to congratulate you on 56 years! I hope to make that…am on my way!

The constitution does not cover homosexual marriage because at the time it was written such thing was unthinkable as it should be now. It just doesn’t make sense at all.
The things you mentioned about civil unions aply to homosexual marriage also I believe.

Equal is equal. When the Constitution was written slaves were o.k., too. As far as sour grapes, when it became apparent the Constitution of Calif. was going to be challenged by a people vote, the Gays had to fight back the way the opposition was fighting them.

Thanks ps. Actually I jumped the gun…..in the spring it will be 56 yrs.

Our fighting was contained to voting not vandalizing, spray painting and damaging property.