E-Harmony Surrenders to Gay Extortion

We are not talking about civil rights - we're talking about a damned dating site. It's ridiculous of you to state that I'm a bigot because I disagree with the sentiment that eHarmony, a private company, has to cater to the homosexual community.

It's a straight dating site.
There are gay dating sites that use the same software.

By the way, I'm "gay," so you can quit assuming I'm some sort of gun-toting homophobe and accept the fact that not everyone who disagrees with you is a bigot.

What you think doesn't matter anymore Humdrum. It was decided IN COURT. Bigots are a thing of the past. Get with the times.

Uhm what I think matters about as much as what you think, Mr. Self-Righteous.
If you think I'm the bigot, then perhaps you should think twice before jumping to conclusions about a person just by reading one comment on one specific issue.
Gay people don't have a Hive Mind.

Humdrum, well it is probably the first time we agree on something. The Gods must be smiling.

I picked the pink handcuffs because of the activist group called code pink.

I will look for something else.

I was not aware of Code Pink, but thanks in any case.
I've just seen a lot of pink getting thrown around with the word "gay" attached to it.

I use links from everywhere. Give me a break

One chance ... give me a second chance

You blew it, time and time again.
Show me that you are actually compassionate enough to care about equal rights and have changed your ways from this hateful crap you spout, and I'll think differently of you. Until then...

I do believe in equal rights differentely than you do.

I do not believe in the appartheid of the opposite sex and I do believe in the allienable right of children to have their biological father and mother.

My Compassion is directed differently than you

Oh, wait a sec. Have their biological father and mother?

Let's ban people from putting their kids up for adoption! Let's give crack-addict mothers and fathers their kids back!

"The rest of your post, I know already."

I really have a hard time believing that you would respond in an accepting loving manner if one of your children is gay.

Call me crazy!!!

Personally I do not send my children to a state school. I pay taxes to the city but have to pay again for tuition in a religious school where I trust the principal is great.

The state is all for choice before birth but no choice after birth. Historically any monopoly end up being bad

The first 7 years are the most important in the development of a child.

The liberal agenda is hurting the proper growth of children in many public schools.

I just had the 8 year son of a friend who came home having to write some small essay on what would he say to someone he is enfatuated with. His das went balistic. Now he has to talk to the teacher, the superintendant and proably will have to go to the school board.

I do not have time to deal with this nonsense and have teachers undermine common sens.

The same kids who are asked about infatuation at 8 are the ones planned parenthood is pushing condoms at 14 in public schools.

Still many teachers are more conservative than the teachers union that took their dues and gave $1.250.000.00 to prop 8. The superintendant of education in California had no shame to go on TV and lie to the whole state. I could not believe it

Parental rights was a big issue in prop 8.

Children rights was also ignored in prop 8.

Their is no more respect for most institutions in this country and for good reasons.

Destroying the basic family unit is the last insitution that can protect this country. It has been assaulted daily for 50 years. ss marriage is the last nail on the coffin.

Gay actvits will destroy what is left of marriage the same way they destroyed the episcopal church.

The country is dividing according to personnal values. The boycott and retaliation by the No on 8 supporters is accelerating the process.

If prop 8 would not have passed many people were thinking of living California. That was the last draw.

Why is there such a stong culture of sexual extinction and death on the left. Promoting contraception, abortion, promiscuity ,stds, aids, homosexuality etc..

Even if the name of marriage is redefined, a new name will emerge. The state and court will loose ultimately. The unit of an egg and a sperm attached to its parents is stronger than any institution or law

So you send your kids to religious schools? How is that any less indoctrination than sending your kids to public school?

Also, divorce harms the institution of marriage - you wanna ban that too?

In addition to that, you have failed to tell me how any of this really protects or harms children. It's harming children to give them a one-sided view of things, whether that view is left or right. Taking your kids to a religious school is just as much "indoctrination" and "brainwashing" as taking your kids to any public school.

Conservatives know deep down that their beliefs and views can easily be challenged, so they shelter their kids in order to brainwash them.

As a teacher who has taught in both religious and public schools, I found that I had more freedom of speech in the private religious schools than in the public schools. The education establishment is not really interested in educating students. It wants to socialize and indoctrinate them. Parents have every right to educate their children in a manner they see fit.

I also found that if the school was hypocritical, as most of the religious schools I've worked at or attended are, the indoctrination tends to backfire. Still, I had more freedom to speak my mind in religious schools than in the public schools. I say more freedom to speak my mind, not complete freedom.

That's why I'm not teaching at the moment. . .

But I have had students that I recommended not to go to certain religious schools, because I could foresee they would not be able to conform to the school without the school breaking their spirits - in some cases because they were gay.

Soliel10 has every right send his children to a school that conforms to his values, nor should he be forced to pay for an education establishment that he finds corrupt and immoral, and believe me, it is (from both points of view!). He does not, however, have the right to forbid others to raise their children in a way he disapproves.

I have seen wonderful religious parents, and wonderful atheist parents, and horrible religious and non-religious parents. A child would be far better off with a loving single parent or two same-sex parents than in a "traditional" but dysfunctional family, or worse yet, passed around in foster care.

What Soliel10 and gays are rightfully asking for is the freedom of conscience to live their lives without the State forcing them to conform to what they are not. Neither group, however, has the right to use the State to force their own views onto others.

Soliel10 and his church may limit their understanding of marriage to a man and a woman. The State should not force that church to marry a same sex couple. I do not see, however, why a non-traditional couple should have to submit their lives to Soliel10 and his church or even to a majority of society.

Even Augustine himself taught that there are some vices that the State should not forbid because doing so would do more harm than good both to the soul and to society. The Church may proclaim a certain lifestyle as being healthier, but may not use the State to enforce that lifestyle. Christians must understand that there is no virtue in a State sanctioned morality. That is what the great saints and theologians of the ancient Church taught. Now we listen to little moralizing minds lacking in love and think they are Christian - everything Jesus taught against.

Neither side has the right to use the State to oppress the other, but the Church has even less right if she is to be true to herself. Once the Church uses the State to enforce a way of life on both members and (God forbid!) non-members, it is no longer following The Way of Christ.

Sigh . . . it's 3:45 AM. This should teach me not to check e-mail before I go to sleep. . . .

It is absolutely your right to teach your children your belief system and your sense of morals, but you have to remember that they are YOURS and they might not be THEIRS.

Our children need to be capable of making decisions for themselves. Based on information they attain from many sources...not just their parents.

You are delusional if you think that by sending your children to a private religious school that they are going to automatically fall into the line of thinking that you want them to.

It doesn't work that way.

I'm a little perplexed on the infatuation issue you mentioned. Was this an infatuation with someone of the opposite sex specifically or simply an infatuation with anyone. ie: Luke Skywalker, Zack and Cody, Bob the Builder.

As a parent our primary role is to love our kids. That's it. We do our best to guide them in the way that we think to be right, but ultimately it's their life. Our job is to prepare them for that life and then let them live it.

My daughter may choose to marry someone that I don't particularly like. She may choose not to marry or not to give me grand children. My son may persue a career that takes him farther away from me than I want. He may become a priest. They may both be gay. Hell...I don't know.

I do know that I love them. Period.

I hope you realize that your last line is admiting that it is black mail and extortion

Thank you

No. I'm just saying that conservative Christians have done acts of "extortion" and "blackmail" similar to what they accuse others of.

Can you provide spred sheet of individual names and donation published by the yes on 8 supporters with direction to harass these individual and intimidate them.

Can you provide organized direction to vandalise building, cars, steal yard signs, send fake anthrax.

Can you provide list of building invided by comando and people beten by yes on 8 supporters

Can you provide list of names used by yes on 8 to called No on 8 supporter similar to bigots, homophobe, breeders, liars, racists etc...etc.

So far I have 1 to 10 individual cases against 1000s

Well considering that, perhaps we should ban homosexuality.

Most of the people against Proposition 8 are peaceful.

I have heard vulgar words come from Prop 8 supporters, such as faggot, sodomite, and so on. Many people in support of Prop 8 seem to be in support of banning homosexuality all together.

It's not about the majority or children, it's about forcing moralism on society.

I feel so sorry for the connies who run eHarmony, who will have to let sodomites on their website. Boo-fucking-hoo.

The mantra that gays is the next black is a joke, another delusion pushed on this country

So you see no allegory in that? Conservatives want to push beyond same-sex marriage and ban things like sodomy, and ban same-sex couples from adopting.

Anyways, what business do you have telling others what they cannot do with other consenting adults?

People do not want marriage being redefined against their will, They are not pushing anything. SS marriage is being pushed on them. You have it upside down.

Children have the fundmental right to a father and a mother. Single people should not adopt, people who are old beyonda certain age should not adopt. It is not just about ss couples.

You cannot steal or kill because you have 2 consenting adult. That is a strange way of thinking.

You should live on an island where you cannot hurt anyone else. Do you pass red lights because you are an adult.

That's NOT what I meant. I don't mean two guys can conspire to blow up a building. I mean guy A and guy B can and should be able to do sexual things with eachother and get married without the state getting involved.

Arkansas has the worst foster care system in the nation, yet they banned unmarried couples from adopting. If a single person wants to adopt a kid and give him or her the best life he or she possibly can, why should they be barred from doing so simply because a mother and father would be "best"?

We can't all have the best. Should we tear down old crappy apartments just because they aren't the "best," and thus put people on the streets?

I guess having nothing is better than having second-best.

Also, I appreciate your direct insult. "live on an island where [I] can't hurt anyone."

My point was that what we do affect others unless we live on one island.

It was not about insulting you.

The mantra that I read over and over here on current is that whatever people do does not affect others.

In many ways that is not true

There's a difference in ways things "effect others."

Fences are illegal in, I think, Glendale, because it "effects others," in that they have to look at ugly metal fences around houses. If I were to dig up the front lawn, it would "effect others" in the sense that it would annoy people who have to look at my ugly torn up front lawn.

Same-sex marriage "effects others" because people do not like it. I should have the right to do as I please as long as it does not infringe on the life, liberty, or persuit of happiness of others. I can see where you can add the "children's rights" spin to things, but here's my counter:

All a child in an orphanage or foster care system really wants is a family. They don't care if that family is two dads, two moms, a dad, or just a mom. All they want is love, and anybody can love and care for a child.

Just because a mother and father would be "best" for a child, that isn't an excuse for banning adoption for everyone else. What would be best for all of us is pretty middle-class houses with a white picket fence and a back yard, so should we tear down all the crummy apartments?

Also, I can see that another reason for that ban in Arkansas. If two women adopt a child, they might teach the kid about social progressivism and tolerance. A couple who has gotten married might be conservative, especially in a state like Arkansas.

Perhaps next we should ban atheists from adopting.

Nowhere on the eHarmony site does it say it's a "Straight Christian Dating Site."

Discriminating against someone because of their sexual preference is morally wrong.

This is one of the reasons there is an established judicial system.

One side of this argument seems to be why would any business choose to not increase its customer base? But when you start looking at cost vs return then maybe there is a negative return on investing in the same sex market.
That isn't even considering the enormous precedent. Ever been to a restaurant that won't let you order off the menu? Of course a lone consumer doesn't have enough financial backing to force a change in a market. Which is one more reason this not on level with African-American Civil Rights. I find the comparison insulting. Think of it this way now all some furry or latex fetish has to do is threaten a law suit and they have to fold.

"The State is forcing a business owner to do business against his conscience."

Just think about that for a minute...

So a restaurant, hotel, department store, car wash, dry cleaner, hardward store (you get the idea) can refuse service to a particular sector of America because it goes against their conscience. Think ageism, sexism, racism. Think discrimination.

Really?...I swear we've come further than that.

Good point.

Yes, the owner still has the right to be an ass on his property.

Do I approve? No. Would the majority of people approve? No. Would they loose business? Probably, and then they would either change or fail, but they may not.

But, if a restaurant was known to not accept a certain group of people, would you go there?

Neither would I.

The same State, however, that enforces laws against discrimination, once enforced laws to discriminate. There is no guarantee that the State will not go turn around and enforce other forms of discrimination.

Jim Crow was a function of the State not the free market.

Freedom means that there will be some people who do things we don't approve of, but if everyone lives in a way you or I approve, there is no freedom. Using the State to force others to live in a manner we approve will backfire and eventually will lead to our enslavement.

Interracial marriage would have happen with or without the courts.

It was moving through the legislative state by state

OK, apparently ,the federal supreme court finished the job. I have to study more on the subject

My original point was that in many states interracial marriages became legal without the courts. Without the conscent of the people the courts are overturned by the people like in California for Prop 8.

You will notice that the Churches were supportive of interacial marriages. It is not the case with ss marriage

Also the judges (in the notes) made it clear that we should not use interracial marriage to justify ss marriage and that marriage is deeply connected to procreation especially it was of great importance in the interacial marriage scenario.

Gay activists missuse the interacial marriage struggle to
promote their own agenda by choosing and picking what is convenient.

They want to have it both ways

Thing is, there is no reason why the state should get involved in this kind of thing. Marriage is just a word, and all the claims the connies make just happen to be speculation.

Why can't you just let two people do as they please as long as it doesn't harm others? Also, my solution is to completely seperate "marriage" from law, that way, everyone can get "married."

soleil10,

Please accept my apologies. I should not make personal attacks; that is wrong. I have removed my crude remarks about you. I disagree with your politics, but that does not justify personal attacks. Please forgive my indiscretion.

Thank you

How do you know they wouldn't have gone in that direction? Operating a business is about making money.

Perhaps it isn't going against his conscience!?

I guess I just don't understand why this is such a big issue for you!? Why you're constantly posting things intended to exclude people. They want the same things you do. Love, acceptance, understanding, respect, dignity etc....

Cantuc , every body wants true love, acceptance etc.

We all want happiness.

I became involved like many people when 4 judges discarded the will of the people and Gay activists tried to redefine marriage.

They have crossed the line of decency and democracy. For the sake of my kids, I cannot stay silent. I hope many will rise.

Millions think like me. They voted in 30 states to protect marriage.

I stand out on current because I go against the grain of this web community .

People are afraid of what they don't know. They think like you because they don't know any better.

Protect your children from what?

If you agree that everyone wants to be happy...why are you fighting against other peoples happiness?

Many many times the majority has voted something in and the government has put a stop to it. This is nothing new.

Oh no! Gays might force your kids to be gay! We better massacre the gays to protect our kids!

Protect your kids from what? Choice?

I am sure if you look closer at history the majority has stopped the government and the courts from doing horrible things too

I constantly hear that the court has to protect the minority from the majority. It is overly exagerated.
The courts make mistake too.

On May 15th the Supreme court made an historical mistake.

Despite the brainwashing of the population for years by the medias, by Hollywood and the politicians, the vote was over 50 % even when Jerry Brown twisted the words of the ballot in a very negative way.

It was a much bigger victory than people think.

Even today after 3 weeks, I cant find stories in the media favoring the yes on 8 supporters and the values they beleive in. 99% is negative and disregard the majority of the population.

Every month the media is loosing more money and going down, still they insult the declining audience that is still watching.

Their arrogance is mass suicidal to a degre that is unbelievable.

Brainwashed? What. the. fuck?

I'm not brainwashed - we're intelligent. We're not blinded by conservatism. Don't refer to us as brainwashed.

Ok, let me rewrite my sentence by saying " despite the media trying to brainwash the population for years"

Now please watch you language. Profanity is offensive to the reader

Fuck is in the dictionary, and it's my right to be offensive.

because god forbid gay/transgender people find love and happiness on the internet just like everyone else.

You are using the same arguments that clubs and restauarants used to omit Jews and Black people.

It's the job of the law to protect everyone regardless of someone's personal feelings. If the law didn't step in in these cases half the country would still have "servants." The law is there to protect the rights of minorities regardless of the feelings of the majority.

It's all or nothing. Everyone should have access to the same rights and services as the rest of the population. Just because it doesn't fit their "business model" doesn't mean it's right.