eHarmony sued for excluding gays.

Page 7 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
56,515
16,238
146
Originally posted by: spamsk8r
Originally posted by: K1052

No, we would just like the rights already accorded to the majority.

You already have the same rights that the rest of us have. You can marry a woman, I can marry a woman. You can't marry a man, neither can I.

You just disagree with the choices presented. There's a big difference there. If an ice cream parlor only offers vanilla or chocolate, but I want strawberry, should I start a fuss that they are denying me my rights to have strawberry ice cream?

No, you would just go to another ice cream joint.

He cannot do that. He is denied the right to marry the consenting adult he is naturally attracted to. You are not.

Nice try, though. But a straw man, to say the least.
 

SirStev0

Lifer
Nov 13, 2003
10,449
6
81
Originally posted by: mugs
eHarmony sells itself with the success rate of their matching system; they will reject straight people if they don't think they'll be able to successfully match them with someone. Perhaps they feel that their system could not effectively match homosexual couples.

The system eHarmony uses does not work for homosexuals... they can not match them based on their system... I read some stuff about eHarmony's system when they first came out... it dealt a lot with different personalities that have been shown to be successful in relationships... they don't match people who are similar they match people based on what others like them find attractive for a mate... it only works when pairing different genders... the lawsuit is frivolous and silly.
 

jagec

Lifer
Apr 30, 2004
24,442
6
81
Originally posted by: K1052
Whenever someone says being gay is a choice I tell them if that is so then they should be able to flick a switch and be attracted to the same sex right that instant. Once the total absurdity of that position is revealed they usually fall back on religion/the bible.

Your position is just as absurd, if you think that all "choices" are as simple as flicking a switch.

Homosexuality is the combination of genetic predisposition, hormones (in the womb and later), and upbringing. In some sense it is a "choice", in much the same way that being extroverted, or having a red-flag temper, or liking cats over dogs is a choice. It's certainly not like flipping a switch or deciding what shirt to wear, but it IS under your control.
 

amish

Diamond Member
Aug 20, 2004
4,295
6
81
Originally posted by: glutenberg
Originally posted by: TheFamilyMan
Originally posted by: mercanucaribe
Discrimination is discrimination. It's exactly the same as refusing service to blacks, Asians, or people with disabilities.

I'm sorry to tell you, but comparing homosexuals to blacks, Asians and people with disabilities is just plain stupid. Gays ARE NOT a different nationality, a minority or a different race.

All this 'protection' for the gay community...give me a ****** break. You make a choice to be a rug muncher or a noodle nuzzler and all of a sudden you want minority status. No one offers minority status for white guys who decide to be with a black woman or an asian woman who decides to be with a black guy or a European guy who decides to be with a latino woman. The race, gender, creed, et al of the person you decide to engage is sexual activity SHOULD NOT entitle you to 'minority' or 'protected' status.

Realizing, of course, that gays are persecuted much in the same manner as minority races, sexes, etc. I don't know where you get the idea that gays made some choice in being a "noodle nuzzler" or a "rug muncher." Can you make that same decision? If I asked you to be a "noodle nuzzler" tomorrow, could you?

no, but i could be a rug muncher!

at a previous job my boss was gay. he told me there are dating sites that cater to the gay community. since i'm a guy that wants a girl can i sue those websites too?

hopefully this cute little action doesn't villify the gay community.
 

glutenberg

Golden Member
Sep 2, 2004
1,941
0
0
Originally posted by: jagec
Originally posted by: K1052
Whenever someone says being gay is a choice I tell them if that is so then they should be able to flick a switch and be attracted to the same sex right that instant. Once the total absurdity of that position is revealed they usually fall back on religion/the bible.

Your position is just as absurd, if you think that all "choices" are as simple as flicking a switch.

Homosexuality is the combination of genetic predisposition, hormones (in the womb and later), and upbringing. In some sense it is a "choice", in much the same way that being extroverted, or having a red-flag temper, or liking cats over dogs is a choice. It's certainly not like flipping a switch or deciding what shirt to wear, but it IS under your control.


Is being heterosexual under your "control?" You think the first time you were attracted to a girl it was because of upbringing? If homsexuality is not biological, then why is heterosexuality?
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
56,515
16,238
146
Originally posted by: jagec
Originally posted by: K1052
Whenever someone says being gay is a choice I tell them if that is so then they should be able to flick a switch and be attracted to the same sex right that instant. Once the total absurdity of that position is revealed they usually fall back on religion/the bible.

Your position is just as absurd, if you think that all "choices" are as simple as flicking a switch.

Homosexuality is the combination of genetic predisposition, hormones (in the womb and later), and upbringing. In some sense it is a "choice", in much the same way that being extroverted, or having a red-flag temper, or liking cats over dogs is a choice. It's certainly not like flipping a switch or deciding what shirt to wear, but it IS under your control.

Really?

So be gay. I want you to be repulsed by women and attracted only to men. Now.

No, now.

Wait, can't do it? Why not? Isn't it a "choice?"

And there is no evidence for your claims of "fact" as to the causes. None whatsoever.

The only explanation for homosexuality (the preference, not the act) supported by evidence is a gestational anomaly (birth defect).
 

SagaLore

Elite Member
Dec 18, 2001
24,036
21
81
They exclude people who haven't completely filed for divorce, i.e. those who are stuck being legally separated for a period of time. Its a site designed for heterosexual singles.
 

glutenberg

Golden Member
Sep 2, 2004
1,941
0
0
Originally posted by: amish

no, but i could be a rug muncher!

at a previous job my boss was gay. he told me there are dating sites that cater to the gay community. since i'm a guy that wants a girl can i sue those websites too?

hopefully this cute little action doesn't villify the gay community.

I'd imagine that you could use those sites all you want but your results may not be what you hoped for; unless, of course, by some magical choice, you could become a noodle stroodler or whatever other name they want to create to belittle a group of people.

Regarding the lawsuit. Why not allow all people to use e-harmony and let the results determine if someone wants to continue paying money to use it. It seems that they outright denied her access because she had listed herself as gay. You don't have to cater to gay people but why deny them access at the same time? Won't the end results filter them out in the end anyways? I mean, how long is a gay person going to keep paying money to e-harmony if the results they get are only heterosexuals. There's no grounds for suing if the desired result is not found.
 

darthsidious

Senior member
Jul 13, 2005
481
0
71
Alan Turing was homosexual. If it weren't for this 'lesser human', your snivelling ass wouldn't have a computer to sit on and type this rubbish.

Originally posted by: sourceninja
I think being gay is part of evolution. It keeps lessor humans for reproducing. Males who are gay are rarely the kind of genetics that nature would want passed down.

 

spamsk8r

Golden Member
Jul 11, 2001
1,787
0
76
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: spamsk8r
Originally posted by: K1052

No, we would just like the rights already accorded to the majority.

You already have the same rights that the rest of us have. You can marry a woman, I can marry a woman. You can't marry a man, neither can I.

You just disagree with the choices presented. There's a big difference there. If an ice cream parlor only offers vanilla or chocolate, but I want strawberry, should I start a fuss that they are denying me my rights to have strawberry ice cream?

No, you would just go to another ice cream joint.

He cannot do that. He is denied the right to marry the consenting adult he is naturally attracted to. You are not.

Nice try, though. But a straw man, to say the least.

The analogy may be flawed, but the original point stands. The point is that he and I both have the same exact rights, it's just that he is not happy with the choices available. You are changing it to be "the right to marry the consenting adult he is naturally attracted to." As far as I'm aware there aren't any laws providing this right to anyone (using this terminology, and terminology is important here as we're discussing legal matters), so it's not a right guaranteed to anyone by the state. Maybe I'm wrong here, but then again IANAL.

As far as what I personally feel, however, I think marriage should have always remained a religious institution not burdened with politics. If the religion you subscribe to has no problem with marrying a gay couple, go ahead. Or if you have no religion but have decided to make a commitment to another person, just go ahead and do that. Then we wouldn't have to worry about all of this. The state could provide cohabitation benefits regardless of sex or marital status, and everyone would be happy.
 

glutenberg

Golden Member
Sep 2, 2004
1,941
0
0
Originally posted by: spamsk8r
The analogy may be flawed, but the original point stands. The point is that he and I both have the same exact rights, it's just that he is not happy with the choices available. You are changing it to be "the right to marry the consenting adult he is naturally attracted to." As far as I'm aware there aren't any laws providing this right to anyone (using this terminology, and terminology is important here as we're discussing legal matters), so it's not a right guaranteed to anyone by the state. Maybe I'm wrong here, but then again IANAL.

As far as what I personally feel, however, I think marriage should have always remained a religious institution not burdened with politics. If the religion you subscribe to has no problem with marrying a gay couple, go ahead. Or if you have no religion but have decided to make a commitment to another person, just go ahead and do that. Then we wouldn't have to worry about all of this. The state could provide cohabitation benefits regardless of sex or marital status, and everyone would be happy.

The analogy is more along the lines of this. You're allowed to marry your significant other and so should a gay man or woman. You are not treating the two groups equally as the end result is that you have one person married and another person unable to marry. On paper, yes, it seems like they have similar rights but what you mean is that the two people have the same laws applying to them and not the same rights.

As to your ice cream analogy, it's more along the lines of this, albeit, I'm sure my analogy has many flaws as comparing sexual preference to ice cream preference is just hard. Two men go to a store wanting ice cream. The store has vanilla and chocolate. One man is allergic to chocolate and the other man is allergic to vanilla. They cannot just suddenly get over these allergies. The store owner says to the two men that although he has these two flavors he will only permit the selling of vanilla. The two men both still have the same choices but guess who's left out. The man allergic to vanilla is now left with nothing. He knows that the store has chocolate and generally he has similar purchasing power as the chocolate allergic man but his only option is to buy vanilla and then throw it in the trash.

Man, what a waste of space of an analogy.
 

NFS4

No Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
72,636
46
91
LOL, i just saw a commercial on TV with a gay dude saying "Still Gay" and the announcer says "Who knows why eHarmony is rejecting millions of singles. Join Chemistry.com"
 

spamsk8r

Golden Member
Jul 11, 2001
1,787
0
76
Originally posted by: glutenberg
Originally posted by: spamsk8r
The analogy may be flawed, but the original point stands. The point is that he and I both have the same exact rights, it's just that he is not happy with the choices available. You are changing it to be "the right to marry the consenting adult he is naturally attracted to." As far as I'm aware there aren't any laws providing this right to anyone (using this terminology, and terminology is important here as we're discussing legal matters), so it's not a right guaranteed to anyone by the state. Maybe I'm wrong here, but then again IANAL.

As far as what I personally feel, however, I think marriage should have always remained a religious institution not burdened with politics. If the religion you subscribe to has no problem with marrying a gay couple, go ahead. Or if you have no religion but have decided to make a commitment to another person, just go ahead and do that. Then we wouldn't have to worry about all of this. The state could provide cohabitation benefits regardless of sex or marital status, and everyone would be happy.

The analogy is more along the lines of this. You're allowed to marry your significant other and so should a gay man or woman. You are not treating the two groups equally as the end result is that you have one person married and another person unable to marry. On paper, yes, it seems like they have similar rights but what you mean is that the two people have the same laws applying to them and not the same rights.

As to your ice cream analogy, it's more along the lines of this, albeit, I'm sure my analogy has many flaws as comparing sexual preference to ice cream preference is just hard. Two men go to a store wanting ice cream. The store has vanilla and chocolate. One man is allergic to chocolate and the other man is allergic to vanilla. They cannot just suddenly get over these allergies. The store owner says to the two men that although he has these two flavors he will only permit the selling of vanilla. The two men both still have the same choices but guess who's left out. The man allergic to vanilla is now left with nothing. He knows that the store has chocolate and generally he has similar purchasing power as the chocolate allergic man but his only option is to buy vanilla and then throw it in the trash.

Man, what a waste of space of an analogy.

The holes in your analogy: The man who is allergic to vanilla can choose to go without. Also, there's nothing any more deadly about having sex with a woman as opposed to a man (as the vanilla-allergy man would possibly die from eating the vanilla).

However, I know what you're saying. I just disagree with you. Let's face it, many people just are never going to see eye to eye on issues such as these, and both sides feel they have very valid points. It's usually the equality side versus the morality side, with a bit of nutjobbery thrown in for good measure. I tend toward the morality side, as I believe you *can* (indeed, must) legislate morality.
 

91TTZ

Lifer
Jan 31, 2005
14,374
1
0
Originally posted by: TheFamilyMan
Originally posted by: mercanucaribe
Discrimination is discrimination. It's exactly the same as refusing service to blacks, Asians, or people with disabilities.

I'm sorry to tell you, but comparing homosexuals to blacks, Asians and people with disabilities is just plain stupid. Gays ARE NOT a different nationality, a minority or a different race.

All this 'protection' for the gay community...give me a ****** break. You make a choice to be a rug muncher or a noodle nuzzler and all of a sudden you want minority status. No one offers minority status for white guys who decide to be with a black woman or an asian woman who decides to be with a black guy or a European guy who decides to be with a latino woman. The race, gender, creed, et al of the person you decide to engage is sexual activity SHOULD NOT entitle you to 'minority' or 'protected' status.

I don't think it's a choice who they like. Did you need to try hard to make your "choice" or did it come naturally to you?
I don't agree with the lawsuit, though. They're not being denied entry, they just have limited choices. That's like me walking into a woman's clothes store and suing because they don't have mens clothes. It's not deiscrimination because I'm allowed to shop there and buy anything I want. My choices are limited, however.

 

Captante

Lifer
Oct 20, 2003
30,316
10,814
136
Originally posted by: sourceninja
To finish my rant, the biggest question to ask is this. How does this hurt the gay community? The answer, it doesn't. In fact, it looks like the perfect buisness opportunity. Instead of suing, the guy should of gotten off his ass and made a website.


But that would require actual work ... this way is much better for him because he'll get a big payout by doing nothing beyond contacting an attorney.

People like this make me sick. :disgust:
 

Accipiter22

Banned
Feb 11, 2005
7,942
2
0
There's a commercial that shows a guy looking at a playboy...after about 30 seconds he says "nope...still gay" it's for some other company, pointing out that eHarmony excludes gays
 

Accipiter22

Banned
Feb 11, 2005
7,942
2
0
Originally posted by: mercanucaribe
Discrimination is discrimination. It's exactly the same as refusing service to blacks, Asians, or people with disabilities.


Go to an OBGYN and see the puzzled look you get when you ask for a pap smear.
 

cKGunslinger

Lifer
Nov 29, 1999
16,408
57
91
Originally posted by: mercanucaribe
Discrimination is discrimination. It's exactly the same as refusing service to blacks, Asians, or people with disabilities.

You can't be serious..
 

cliftonite

Diamond Member
Jul 15, 2001
6,899
63
91
Originally posted by: cKGunslinger
Originally posted by: mercanucaribe
Discrimination is discrimination. It's exactly the same as refusing service to blacks, Asians, or people with disabilities.

You can't be serious..

How is it different?
 

sourceninja

Diamond Member
Mar 8, 2005
8,805
65
91
Originally posted by: cliftonite
Originally posted by: cKGunslinger
Originally posted by: mercanucaribe
Discrimination is discrimination. It's exactly the same as refusing service to blacks, Asians, or people with disabilities.

You can't be serious..

How is it different?

I can't wait for the NAMBLA section of eharmony.com
 

Praxis1452

Platinum Member
Jan 31, 2006
2,197
0
0
this case could have merit under california law... it is cali.... this might make eHarmony stop service to california etc. I'm not familiar but it sounds plausible.
 

cKGunslinger

Lifer
Nov 29, 1999
16,408
57
91
Originally posted by: cliftonite
Originally posted by: cKGunslinger
Originally posted by: mercanucaribe
Discrimination is discrimination. It's exactly the same as refusing service to blacks, Asians, or people with disabilities.

You can't be serious..

How is it different?

Do you think that a men's strip club should have to legally hire an overweight, hairy, male dancer, just because he can dance as well as a woman? That the wants and needs of their clientèle should have no effect whatsoever on their decisions?

Do you believe the Miss Black America pageant should allow short, pudgy, male Hitler impressionists to compete?

Should my little 1-booth, 50sqft coffee shop be sued because I don't have enough room for a guy in an iron lung and his 6 nurse attendants to comfortable dine? Should I not be allowed to grow peanuts in the same store, just in case someone with a severe peanut allergy want to patronize my place?

Should a church be forced to allow a biker gang with "666" tattooed on their foreheads and "Fvck Jesus" t-shirts to attend services?

 

91TTZ

Lifer
Jan 31, 2005
14,374
1
0
Originally posted by: cliftonite
Originally posted by: cKGunslinger
Originally posted by: mercanucaribe
Discrimination is discrimination. It's exactly the same as refusing service to blacks, Asians, or people with disabilities.

You can't be serious..

How is it different?

You've got to be kidding. There's no way that you can't see the difference. It's Analogies .0101

They're not denying gays access. Read my analogy above. Gay people can still join. There just won't be the selection that they want. Much like me shopping in a women's clothes store. I'm free to shop, that doesn't mean they'll have what I want.
 

mercanucaribe

Banned
Oct 20, 2004
9,763
1
0
Originally posted by: 91TTZ
Originally posted by: cliftonite
Originally posted by: cKGunslinger
Originally posted by: mercanucaribe
Discrimination is discrimination. It's exactly the same as refusing service to blacks, Asians, or people with disabilities.

You can't be serious..

How is it different?

You've got to be kidding. There's no way that you can't see the difference. It's Analogies .0101

They're not denying gays access. Read my analogy above. Gay people can still join. There just won't be the selection that they want. Much like me shopping in a women's clothes store. I'm free to shop, that doesn't mean they'll have what I want.

Gays AREN'T free to join eHarmony.