eHarmony Changes Its Tune?

Hmm

eDomesticPartnership-y

---

by: mcc @ Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 13:41:54 PM CST

why would anyone go the them?

and who would be dumb enough to trust that they will be taken seriously?  if i were interested in online matchmaking, i'd only agree to pay them after they had successfully made a match.  something tells me they'll be all too happy to take the queer dollars and not try very hard to provide good service.

Lurleen on Twitter

---

by: Lurleen @ Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 13:49:55 PM CST

Agreed.

I suspect a website with the basics that will prevent them from getting sued.

PLUS, on a christian-y type place, can you even put stuff like "LEATHER PIG, HERE! UB2!" 'cause I sense a whole lot of censorship on such a site.

---

by: saywhat? @ Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 13:56:03 PM CST

[ Parent ]

A better question

who would be dumb enough to trust that they will be taken seriously?

A relevant question - but I think a better one is: who would want to trust that they actually will know what they're doing when it comes to matching up same-sex couples?  When this issue first came up I wondered, knowing that it was not likely (and Warren's coziness with Daddy Dobby doesn't make it any more likely), whether their refusal to deal with same-sex matches was because they genuinely believed that they couldn't do a good job of it and didn't want to offer a substandard product.

Now...

What will the neo-eHarmony's policy be about trans people?

Hint for Dr. Warren: If, at any point, you feel the urge to utter the word 'chromosomes', don't.

>^..^<

---

by: KatRose @ Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 14:24:31 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I think the lawsuit was silly...

I mean, use another site goddammit! Why complain when there are many of other sites that are specifically for you, that respect you? Why do you want a service that does not even want it?

I get the hurt that we feel from being excluded from almost everything but there are places where we can congregate and address each other. Again, why wait for EHarmony to address your desires when there are sites that are geared towards it (and I'm not even talking about manHunt).

It seems silly and it just seems like this McKinney is butt-hurt over not being able to fit in when he should have just given his money to a company that respected his orientation enough to invest in trying to find him a match and not one that admits "We didn't really intend to make this, uh for you but as to not lose any money, here yoou go... hope this is okay and if not. Oh well..."

But whatevs. I won't be the one to say don't "feed the opposition more than necessary" because those people were made to complain, but World Nut News Daily will have a field day with this one...

---

by: saywhat? @ Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 13:54:09 PM CST

Yeah, the down side to passing inclusive laws

is that it's no longer up to any segment of our community to decide which applications of the law we want to fight for.

The NJ Civil Rights Division, which is a state enforcement body, negotiated this deal. So that's the upside, they get $50K of money earned through stubborn exclusion to enforce the cases you might like better.

In balance, I think I prefer being included, but there are some facts that make me say, Whu? I came all the way from the midwest and busted my ass for a dozen years so that you could sue the photographer who told you upfront, 'I'd prefer not to shoot your not-wedding'? Call someone else, it's a big phone book, not a test case.

But wait, there's more!

---

by: PhoenixRising @ Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 14:06:27 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I agree completely

Though not exactly what I posted several months back, it matches the sentiment.  Why waste the time, the money, the court system, etc.  There are plenty of other more worth-while causes and passions to pursue.

I've always said that I spend my money where I feel welcomed. I'm glad to see someone else with similar thinking!

---

by: CharlesN @ Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 14:57:37 PM CST

[ Parent ]

this was a battle we didn't need to fight

Seriously, there was no reason for this, other than to prove some intangible point.

If this had been the gas company, or the only grocery store in a 100-mile radius, I'd be on board.

But this was just completely unnecessary, and does nothing but further the notion that there's some big Gay Agenda out to destroy the Universe.

---

by: PunkZanyJ @ Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 14:24:43 PM CST

Are we sure...

the plaintiff is actually gay and not a plant by the right wing?  

---

by: bgkev @ Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 14:48:39 PM CST

[ Parent ]

What About Bisexuals?

After all, under the new system they'll have two sets of subscriptions to pay.

____________________________________
Cuius testiculos habes, habeas cardia et cerebellum.

---

by: tavdy79 @ Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 14:37:08 PM CST

What about Trans?

---

by: Diana CT @ Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 15:57:01 PM CST

[ Parent ]

even if I was single

I'd be MORE likely to have a Coors kegger with Mary Cheney than have a profile on e-Harmony.

What have you done today, to make ya feel PROUD?


~Heather Small

---

by: peteyPornpig @ Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 14:47:01 PM CST

I'm thinking, perhaps...

perhaps it's my paranoia, but I really don't think that suing e-Harmony was such a good thing. let them hate; we'll be fine on our own. Besides, we can start our own site where we reject Christianists.

---

by: rptrcub @ Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 14:50:11 PM CST

Don't be mean...

There are gay christians and very suportive Christians...

Let's be fair now.

---

by: saywhat? @ Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 15:06:25 PM CST

[ Parent ]

There's a difference...

between Christians and Christianists, just as there is between Muslims and Islamists. As with Islamists and the message of Mohammed, Christianists have become so obsessive over the minutiae of religion they've lost sight of the core of the faith - love and hope.

____________________________________
Cuius testiculos habes, habeas cardia et cerebellum.

---

by: tavdy79 @ Thu Nov 20, 2008 at 05:44:59 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Non-Discrimination Means Non-Discrimination

Period.

If a site said only white people could join, would that be OK as long as there were plenty of other sites which didn't discriminate or specifically catered to racial minorities? Maybe some of you would be OK with that but if your instinctive answer it "that's different" than you are basically agreeing with conservative blacks who argue that discrimination based on sexual orientation is fundamentally different than discrimination based on race. I find that very interesting.

Since when do we tell people who have been discriminated against that they should just go where they're wanted and forget about it?

If the issue is that the Internet is infinite and almost anyone can set up their own site, then we should have that discussion and maybe change public accomodation laws to exclude it but that should apply to all groups accross the board and I doubt you could get such a law passed anywhere.

---

by: claudew @ Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 15:22:21 PM CST

You there are places on the internet...

That do have a 'whites only' type feel to them, so shrugs...

It's not that there isn't a cause of concern or that we don't understand the feeling this guy had. It's just that there are better places to spend your money, and yeah I kinda feel funny about this issue 'cause what if like a het. cigendered woman opened a profile on a gay site. I mean, she can but it's kinda like, "There are other places that could best serve you instead of here."

Sometimes I don't think it's discrimination (not- outright) as much as 'this is our focus group' and so forth. hell, I'm on a few of black messageboards where whites can participate in but it's made clear that 'this is a safe space for poc to express themselves' and any silliness from the outside will not be tolerated. Discrimination... eh, not really.

shrugs again, I just think that it would be best to give your money to people who want it-

Or Hell, develop oyour own Gay EHarmony (which is kinda pointless now since there are a couple...).

---

by: saywhat? @ Thu Nov 20, 2008 at 07:48:03 AM CST

[ Parent ]

you're missing the point.

eHarmony is not the gas company, the post office, or the only grocery store for 100 miles.  It's a personal's site.  It receives no public funding, it s a private organization, a non-essential service.

You've oversimplified the issue.

Most discrimination law deals with schools, public places, and employment.  Private organizations are not typically considered public places, they generally are exempt from these kinds of laws, and for good reason...

Take the opposite point, you might understand where we're coming from:

Should Bear411 be forced to host personal ads for women, straight men, and non-bears?

Should JDate be forced to offer services for Gentiles?

Should the United Negro College Fund be forced to consider white applicants for their scholarships?

Should MENSA be forced to allow membership to people who do not meet their IQ standards?

Should you be forced to date/have sex with people you don't find attractive?

By your logic, none of these places should be able to continue as they are, and should all be forced to accept/allow/deal with everyone instead of their preferred market/interest group.

---

by: PunkZanyJ @ Thu Nov 20, 2008 at 15:12:26 PM CST

[ Parent ]

bear411

when will they accept women's profiles?    

---

by: dards4444 @ Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 17:05:37 PM CST

compatible partners!

i just love how mealy-mouthed the name of the service is...Compatible Partners. it has an air of ewww, YOU PEOPLE, which given eHarmony's endless defenses of their homophobia in the past, somehow wouldn't surprise me.

(source: http://www.nowpublic.com/cultu... )

"it's a long road from law to justice." (Dar Williams)

---

by: algormortis @ Thu Nov 20, 2008 at 05:12:27 AM CST