eHarmony Caves to Gay Activist Pressure

In another instance of gay activist bullying, online dating service has agreed to create a new website, “Compatible Partners”, exclusively for gay and lesbian users. To quote blogger Scott Hong’s hilarious post, Militant Heterosexuals Sue,

    “Never mind that [eharmony] was started in order to provide long-lasting relationships based on Christian values – heterosexual only, for the purposes of marriage (not casual flings).”

For indepth information and commentary, also read this great post by blogger I Vote Yes, Gay Rights Activists Infiltrate eHarmony


7 comments so far

  1. beetlebabee on

    This eHarmony thing is keeping me up at night. What chutzpah to even think that one community of people can force a private business to do their bidding. It’s the epitome of Mayor Newsom’s “Whether you like it or not” speech.

    It is completely creepy like pinky and the brain taking over the world, except the consequences aren’t amusing at all, and you get the feeling that they’re winning.

  2. Matthew Paige on

    Creepy? I don’t see how. Just because you don’t like the idea of businesses serving different aspects of the community equally without prejudice, does not mean that is not how things should be.

    The vast majority of studies have shown directly or indirectly that sexual orientation is an innate trait, meaning that there is likely a genetic component. There have been specific genetic markers which have been identified that are totally unique to persons who identify as being gay. Although not all gay persons have those markers, it is significant that heterosexuals don’t have those markers. So are we to treat people differently for genetic traits which they themselves had no choice about?

    There is an imperfect comparison to the Jim Crow laws of the South where Blacks were excluded from certain businesses. The analogy is imperfect because gays have not suffered a history of slavery and unlike Blacks most can choose to hide their differences. But if you keep it basic that skin color and sexual orientation are both determined genetically, and look at that aspect alone, excluding all other factors, and then you might see how it fits.

    It has been my experience that anyone who does not like gays, if you dig a little deeper usually does not like persons of other races, religions or national origins. Gays are the last socially acceptable prejudice in the U.S., and as that is disappearing, people won’t have socially acceptable scapegoats to point at, and without scapegoats, then they have to take responsibility for their own lives and people just don’t want to do that because it is much easier to blame Blacks, Illegal aliens, Jews, etc… And of course Gays.

    The roots in prejudice have a lot to do with blaming someone else for their own lives or for society’s woes, and the fear of one’s own inadequacy in the face of playing on a field where everyone is equal. If we all start out from a place of equality, then we are responsible for our own lives, and the state of the community for which we live in.

    There is no secular reason why any group should be excluded from our society. Freedom of religion mutes out any religious arguments, and as far as scripture goes, it was men who wrote it and translated it. In addition the words written were to deal with the cultures and situations faced at that time, with a lot less knowledge of what has been discovered by science.

    When it comes to religion, there are generally three types. The faithful, who believe in the absence of facts, the fundamentalists, who believe in spite of the facts, and the fanatics, who set out to destroy any facts or persons or group of people who contradict their beliefs. As each group starts to achieve new levels of equality, whether it is Blacks, Women, or Gays, the religious population has shifted towards fanaticism.

    Rational people who hold religious beliefs feel that their doctrine is strong enough to withstand the advances in civil rights. After all, the only group Jesus spoke out against was hypocrites. Jesus himself never spoke out against homosexuality that was all Peters doing, as far as the New Testament goes.

    Despite claims to the contrary the Peter who wrote several books in the Bible was not the same Peter who accompanied Jesus, but was a convert after the death of Jesus, so he never heard the teachings of Jesus first hand. Although a work of fiction, “The Da Vinci Code” does accurately chronicle how the Bible was written and how the early Christian church was formed. It is a lot more fun reading than John Boswell’s “Christianity, Social Tolerance & Homosexuality.” This won the 1981 American Book Award for History.

    Anyway, the point is that the so called Homosexual agenda is simply to be treated the same as everyone else. There are no rights they seek which are not enjoyed and taken for granted by the heterosexual population. This has been distorted by claims that they are seeking “special rights,” but I have yet to hear any rights they seek that are any more than what heterosexuals enjoy and take for granted.

    So, again, what is creepy about this? What is creepy about wanting to be treated equally and served equally by businesses? Businesses should serve everyone equally.

    In the case of eHarmony, as business owners, they should look for opportunities to make more money and should have welcomed the opportunity to apply their unique service of psychological profiling to match singles to a new untapped population.

    It is hypocritical for the general population to decry the gay population for promiscuity and the lack of long term commitments and then to deny them tools to achieve long term monogamous commitments.

    Of course I have educated myself past social prejudice and religious dogma. It may seem creepy to someone who is still ignorant and does not understand sexual orientation or the roots of prejudice.

  3. Heather on


    While there are several points in your discussion I would like to comment on, I will limit myself at this time to two of them:

    After all, the only group Jesus spoke out against was hypocrites. Jesus himself never spoke out against homosexuality that was all Peters doing, as far as the New Testament goes.

    Jesus loved the sinner, not the sin. What did he say to the woman who committed adultery? Did he say it was okay? No, he said to go and sin no more. And you are correct in saying that the Bible was translated by man… actually several men over the years. So do you think some things have been taken out of the Bible? Like maybe Jesus talking about homosexuality? Maybe those translating the Bible at the time didn’t think it was necessary to have it in there since it wasn’t an issue. Hmmmm….

    The point is that the so called Homosexual agenda is simply to be treated the same as everyone else. There are no rights they seek which are not enjoyed and taken for granted by the heterosexual population.

    They have the same rights as the heterosexual population. If they didn’t like what eHarmony had to offer, then they needed to go to another service. And I know that there were other services out there because I saw commercials for them that exploited that exact thing.

    I’m at McDonalds and I want a taco. But they don’t have tacos. Do I sue McDonalds? No, I go to a place that serves tacos.

    When same sex couples stop being the victim and start realizing that the world is not “out to get them”, maybe they will be treated the same as everyone else. But as long as they play the victim role, they will continue to be treated differently.

  4. rubyeliot on

    Thanks for the post! And it is creepy. And weird.

  5. Euripides on

    Matthew makes some interesting points but maintains several logical fallacies in his passionate piece.

    Matthew’s first fallacy is the idea that all businesses in the US must serve different aspects of the community without prejudice. There is no legal or Constitutional mandate that says private institutions must respond to the will of the community. This happens all the time. For example, churches are private institutions that also happen to have Constitutional protection over their free exercise. (Look it up in the first amendment. It’s right there. I’ll wait while you do that.) A church cannot be forced by government or sued in the courts to coerce it to accept someone as a member if that church decides not to allow that person. The same standard used to apply to other private institutions until civil rights suits attacked the nature of the private institution. For Blacks and Women, this meant a liberation into the basic structures of the economic system: hiring practices changed. But for gay activists, breaking into a private institution isn’t about getting jobs, it’s about defining public acceptance for a behavior and lifestyle that is unacceptable to most Americans.

    Matthew’s next fallacy is the idea of genetic determinism: “Gays are born that way.” The problem with this idea isn’t that some people may be born with an attraction to people of the same sex. The problem is that acting on those attractions is unacceptable behavior to most Americans. Genetic determinism, in the gay argument, says that genetics determine actions. For example, if I had a genetic predisposition to “love” a lot of different women (many men are genetically built this way) then I should accept that genetic programming and cheat on my wife. I am only fulfilling my genetic programming.(Admittedly, and to the detriment of society and marriage, a lot of men do just that.) How about if I have a genetic predisposition toward something a little less publicly acceptable, say violence? Let’s say that innately, I am a violent person. Does my genetics give me the right to express my innate violence? Of course not. Why? Because it’s socially and legally unacceptable. Society will continue to condemn violent actions I take because society deems that harmful behavior. (Well, except if you watch enough violent television or video games, or movies. You get the impression that a certain segment of Americans openly condone violence.) American society mostly condemns homosexual behavior, and now gays are shocked to discover there is some resistance to it?

    In case you missed it, I’ve just given a “secular” reason for society to condemn homosexual behavior. It is not, and never has been, a widely acceptable form of behavior in any society in history. Sure, there have been small pockets of acceptance, among the privileged classes in Greece or Rome, for example. But despite the gay view, history by and large ignores homosexuality because its population has expressed itself privately. History also demonstrates that when gay sex emerges publicly, it is largely condemned.

    Matthew’s analogy between gays and blacks is problematic. Black skin is genetic. But black skin does not predispose a Black person to certain behaviors, especially behaviors that oppose social norms.

    Matthew’s experience with bigots argues from the specific to create a hasty generalization. Because bigots don’t like gays, Blacks, other religions or cultures, we must conclude that all people who don’t like the idea of gay sex are bigots. This is obviously untrue. For example, are the Blacks who voted in favor of California’s Prop 8 to be called bigots? Gay activists couldn’t quite come to grips with this idea, and so a lot of news stories indicate that the Blacks in California were misled, or merely got that pesky religion in the way of clear thinking.

    Matthew would love to see a world where equality and tolerance are the norms, but then turns around and negates his own argument by blaming religion.

    Blaming religion demonstrates a whole range of problems with Matthew’s argument. Here Matthew’s true “colors” show themselves. The pro-gay activists cannot seem to make an argument supporting their sexual choices without first condemning religion.

    One fallacy is transferal: What is true of the part must be true of the whole. Matthew makes the broad generalization that the religious population has shifted toward fanaticism. I use the same argument and say that gay activists have shifted toward fanaticism. Matthew’s own definition applies: Fanatics are those “who set out to destroy any facts or persons or group of people who contradict their beliefs.”

    And I’d have the better argument. Why? Because after Prop 8 passed in California, nine out of ten news stories (yes, I’ve counted) talk about how unfair or un-American or intolerant that vote was. And what do all of these news stories have in common? They universally condemn religion. (Just as Matthew did.) Matthew, gay activists, and the news media all express their own fanaticism against religion, trying to destroy the people and groups who believe differently than they do.

    This leads to another fallacy, the red herring. Gay activists blaming religion for society’s problems is a red herring argument. Here is an example: The majority of Californians voted in favor of Prop 8. Then comes the red herring. The gay activists immediately protested against those “evil” Mormons who are rich and gave their money to the church to block gays from equality. Don’t look at the vote, they cried! Look at how much those Mormons are a bunch of evil bigots!

    You see how that works? Instead of coming to grips with the reality that the majority of the people of California voted to pass Prop 8, the activists throw blame at a readily attackable group. (And who doesn’t enjoy picking on the Mormons now and then? My local newspaper does it at least once a week.)

    Matthew’s division of the religious into three types is startlingly short sighted. It is a fallacy of hasty generalization. What this means is that Matthew created three categories out of thin air, then defined them with attributes without sufficient statistical or supportive evidence. This type of argument also leads to stereotyping religious people. So in effect, Matthew tells us not to stereotype gay people but then turns around and stereotypes religious people.

    Matthew’s statement that religion got in the way of Black civil rights is patently untrue. Religion was at the forefront of the abolitionist movement to free Black slaves, the integrationist movement after the Civil War, and the civil rights movement of the 50s and 60s. Martin Luther King wasn’t a religious leader by accident.

    I am unsure where Matthew was going with his argument about Peter and The Da Vinci Code. Another red herring. The book itself is almost universally rejected as historical, since, of course, it is a work of fiction. To say that Jesus didn’t condemn homosexuality is passing off a fallacy arguing from silence. Just because Jesus doesn’t mention homosexuality (a 20th century term) we can’t conclude that he condoned the practice of homosexual sex. Jesus does condemn other sexual promiscuity. John Boswell’s book commits the same fallacy, arguing from silence.

    eHarmony as a business can indeed adopt the ideal of making more money. There are some people in the world who do run businesses that way. I can think of several banks and auto makers who fit that bill who have recently been called “greedy” for their pursuit of wealth. There are a smaller number of businesses where profit isn’t the overriding ideal. Matthew seems unfamiliar with these types.

    I own my own business, for example, and want to make money with it. I will, and I have, however, declined to take on clients with whom I do not agree. I turned down a very lucrative deal to work with a chain store that sells pornography. Why? Because I do not believe in supporting the sex industry. As a business, I should have the freedom to decline work from anyone with whom I don’t agree without the threat of a law suit and strong arm tactics to make me do otherwise.

    Matthew may have educated himself past social prejudice and religious dogma, but he has not educated himself past religious prejudice and social dogma. Apparently holding religious prejudices and preaching gay social dogma doesn’t indicate ignorance in his case.

  6. beetlebabee on

    Well, I was going to say something here, but considering the length of the previous post, all that’s left to say is “Ditto!” and “Amen!”

  7. Euripides on

    Yes, I get lengthy sometimes. Sorry about that. 🙂

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: