gay rights extremists bring us an e-harmony disaster

Democrats we are the majority party now.  We have responsbilities to 100% of the population.  We can no longer look at the country from a protest point of view from various numerical minorities if we don't want to return to be minority status.

Or is that where most here feel comfortable?,2817,233 5035,00.asp

This article shows that the exremists in the gay rights movements have moved past tolerance, acceptance, and even equality.  They are demanding that people who disagree with them have their rights curtailed.

In this case the E-harmony business decided it was better to settle than fight a civil lawsuit.  I think that is a horrible idea because it will re-invigorate others to use the law to force others to think a certain way.

Let's understand:

E-harmony had a business that matched




Everyone was welcome to purchase their service if that's what they wanted.

There are other businesses that offer similar services for people seeking same sex relationships.

Yet, the premise of this suit is that it is discriminatory for
eharmony to be in the business that they want to be in, and that the government should either force them to change their business or go out of business.

For people who keep comparing this to race, this is just one of many examples of why the comparison is not apt.

First it is offensive to me as an African American to compare what my people have gone throught to an orientation that a person can declare or not declare and switch based on their preference.

But I digress.

When blacks sue to be served by the private businesses, it was to receive the same  exact service as the next person.  No better. No worse.  No different.

This person who brought the suit is forcing eharmony to have to actually change his business, change his computer programs, and now actually do something the company obviously didn't want to do.

If Democrats on all sides of these issues can't agree that a website has the right to determine what business they are selling, and not be forced to offer a service they might disagree with, we will deserve to lose the majority.

Luckily, so far President - elect Obama has shown himself to be in tune with the American people.

It would be equal to forcing MyDD to print pro-Republican material to balance the pro-Democratic tilt on this site.

Tags: craig farmer, Democrats, newliberal, obama (all tags)



yellow is a homophobe

Please note this diarist has a history of homophobia here at Mydd.

by venician 2008-11-21 09:37AM | 0 recs
Re: yellow is a homophobe

You should note, we have a majority in congress, in the state govt's., and a POTUS because of people who beleive in the Democratic Party, America, and traditional values.

you can call us names all you like.

But without us you get George Bush.

Why not address the issue instead of attacking?

Or are you an extremist like the person who brought this lawsuit?

by yellowdem1129 2008-11-21 09:40AM | 0 recs
Re: yellow is a homophobe

if they win the law suit that means the law was on their side. and if the law was on their side how extremist were they?

if they lose, that means the law was against them.

we are a nation of laws, how about you let the laws do their thing.

by TruthMatters 2008-11-21 09:47AM | 0 recs
so you agree with all laws?

so prop 8 is not extremist?

glad you agree.

by yellowdem1129 2008-11-21 09:53AM | 0 recs
He probably would have defended Jim Crow laws too


by Sandy1938 2008-11-21 01:30PM | 0 recs
So I should ing care

If the people being discriminated against give suit against the entity that's discriminating?  I should be outraged?

    "traditional values".  That's code for saying "I don't want gay people getting the same rights I've got."

I say this as a straight man who is engaged to the most wonderful woman alive.  It's not like it won't count if the queers do it, too.

by Reaper0Bot0 2008-11-21 09:49AM | 0 recs

This healthy attitude is exactly what I see in real straight men.  All of that whining about gays tends to come from men who are much less secure in their identity.  

by BPK80 2008-11-22 02:12AM | 0 recs
Re: gay rights extremists bring

'First it is offensive to me as an African American to compare what my people have gone throught to an orientation that a person can declare or not declare and switch based on their preference.'

first, as an AA you should not still be touting that out-of date notion that 'it's a choice'. read up some. Since being GLBT - is not a choice akin to a light switch - you're positions are discriminatory, and yes reflective of the despicable injustice the 1960s civil rights movement set about overcoming.

face it, you are sadly a bigot.

by swissffun 2008-11-21 09:59AM | 0 recs
can you speak for every person alive

If there are some people say they are not gay anymore but are straight. which happens.

If there are some people who said for years they are straight, now say they are gay. which happens.

If there are some who say they were straight but now bisexual. which happens.

If there are some people who do whatever they feel they want without any labels. which happens.

who are you or me to tell me whether they are acting out of instinct, experience, curiosity, a combo, or something neither one of us knows?

by yellowdem1129 2008-11-21 10:24AM | 0 recs
Re: can you speak for every person alive

Maybe he/she is gay?  I am, and I can tell you first-hand it isn't a choice.

You make an assertion based on not being gay that people can turn it on and off.  You are completely off your rocker.

Obviously, being black is a choice, too, because for years blacks tried skin bleaching products to try to turn them white.

by Say Car Ramrod 2008-11-21 10:34AM | 0 recs
Re: can you speak for every person alive

and you can speak for everyone else, right?

so tell me then why do some people live decades as one or the other, and then switch?

Are they brainwashed?

they really aren't ex-gays?
they really aren't coming out the closet?

Madonna has been gay, and now she's not?
is she bisexual? Is that pre-wired too?

I dont' pretend to speak for everyone else, but you can because of your life?

by yellowdem1129 2008-11-21 10:38AM | 0 recs
So, to use your logic...

The people who are "ex-gay" are really gay, because they were attracted to people of the same sex, then they "weren't" and then they were again.

Do you see how you're twisting yourself in circles to make this argument?

As for why people do the things they do, I can't answer that.  Is Madonna gay?  Bisexual?  I don't know...maybe she just does it for publicity.  Maybe she's bisexual and just comfortable enough with herself to sleep with whoever the hell she wants.

Some people are just attracted to who they're attracted to.

Coming out of the closet isn't necessarily a good or a bad thing.  Some people live for decades in a straight relationship when they're really gay for hundreds of, societal pressure, religious beliefs...whatever.  Just because they decide to be true to themselves doesn't mean they were faking it all along.

I have a gay friend who was married for 20 years.  Why?  Because his right-wing religious family insisted he get married right out of college.

I don't pretend to speak for all gay people, but I can damned well bet you that the gay denizens of MyDD will tell you nearly the same thing that I am.

Then again...I bet you wouldn't change your mind anyway.  You're a bigot, plain and simple.

by Say Car Ramrod 2008-11-21 10:47AM | 0 recs
I don't know nor do you

look at this person who was a gay activits for 29 years: /marchweb-only/112-52.0.html

you can tell what think the truth is, and so can I.

but if a person was "straight" for 29 years and then changed, they have accepted their "true self",

but this person is probably confused right?

by yellowdem1129 2008-11-21 10:49AM | 0 recs
Re: I don't know nor do you

Very few people who come out later in life say they "were straight for 29 years."  Every single person I know who is/was in a heterosexual marriage long-term and came out later in life knew they had a same-sex attraction all along.  Most felt familial / societal / religious pressure to get married in the first place.

by Dreorg 2008-11-21 11:00AM | 0 recs
Re: I don't know nor do you

What if you grew up in a family, community or a society as as whole that told you what were you are isn't right?  Chances are you would try to hide whatever it is that was "wrong" with you.  Maybe it was easier than getting the harassment or prejudice.  Even now with Prop 8, we are telling people who like the same sex that they are wrong.  Churches are telling them they are going to hell and what they do in the bedroom is now a topic up for debate in anyone's living room.  After speaking to quite a few members of the GLBT community, it has become quite apparent that it is not a choice just like i didn't choose to be straight.  You are citing a Christian website for your debate when we should be keeping the church as far from this as possible.  We already know where they stand and why they stand there.  You want to really do some research, look up the Kinsey reports.  

by selfevident 2008-11-21 11:22AM | 0 recs
Re: I don't know nor do you

Most ex-gays return to being gay and admit the ex-gay claim was just selfdelusion.   The "successful" ex-gays can very rarely maintain heterosexual relationships, generally resort to celibacy, and when honest admit the same sex attraction never goes away.  Many times they live a fraud, i.e. actually reengaging in gay sex, going to gay bars on the sly, etc.  No one denies the sincerity of the effort, but the results amount to people who recloset themselves or decide that living as gay is what integrity demands.

The founders of Exodus International, the original ex-gay organization, are the most famous examples to relapse and call the Pray The Gay Away/ex-gay thang all a grotesque error, but there are very few long term ex-gays.  If any.

Have a look at for more info.

And yes, what you have said so far is bigoted and ignorant.

by killjoy 2008-11-21 02:28PM | 0 recs
Re: I don't know nor do you

There are also very few exgays who are not on the payroll of some conservative Christian organization. They are 'exgay for pay'.

by DaleA 2008-11-21 07:23PM | 0 recs
Re: can you speak for every person alive

Anyone can "say" they've swithced. Until they can PROVE that they no longer are turned on by someone of the same sex then it's just meaningless.

yellow you should also check out what Kinsey has to say.

by venician 2008-11-21 02:46PM | 0 recs
Re: can you speak for every person alive

When did you actually consciously make the decision to be straight?  When did you actually contemplate the possibility of being gay?

Without that precise moment in your own life, how can you possibly state that others have one?

by emsprater 2008-11-21 10:58AM | 0 recs
none of this matters to me

i'm fine with you being you and me being me and everyone else likewise.

The question is whether your view should be forced on a business like eharmony?

they weren't discriminating. they were doing business as they chose.

people keep trying to say their experience must be the experience of others.

we should be tolerant of others regardless of the direction to the left or to the right.

by yellowdem1129 2008-11-21 11:04AM | 0 recs
Re: none of this matters to me

Your reply to me has nothing to do with the discussion.  You use a red herring to cloak your homophobia.

You have made the statement that it is a choice, not an unalienable trait, like being black.  Yet you can't relate to me the time that you were faced with making the choice of exactly which sex you would be attracted to.

You are a bigot. Your purpose is to be divisive.  Period.

by emsprater 2008-11-21 11:13AM | 0 recs
quote the statement

it doesn't exist.

I don't know. i believe every person's life experience could be different.
some born
some experiment
some choice
soome whatever.

who cares?

the point is we should respect people and their viewpoint.

eharmony has the right to do business the way the want is the point of the diary.

by yellowdem1129 2008-11-21 11:16AM | 0 recs
Re: quote the statement

Um, they don't have the right to do business the way they want.  They have to abide by the laws of the US and of the states where they avail themselves of the opportunity to transact business.  Their options are more accurately described as "the right to do business as they see fit UNDER THE LAW," and "the right to not do business."

Please please PLEASE try to understand this.

by Jay R 2008-11-21 01:51PM | 0 recs
You lost me right here...

First it is offensive to me as an African American to compare what my people have gone throught to an orientation that a person can declare or not declare and switch based on their preference.

You think being gay is a switch that you can turn on and off?'re more ignorant than I thought you were.

Just because being gay is invisible to the naked eye and being a person of color (black, Indian, native American, etc.) is not, doesn't mean that there aren't rights of a minority to be protected.

Who the fuck do you think you are?

by Say Car Ramrod 2008-11-21 10:31AM | 0 recs
Re: You lost me right here...

I'm giving real life examples of what has happened.

How many times have people "came out of the closet".

There are also people who claim to be "ex-gay".

There are also people who have had homosexual experiences, the ole "in college" and lead 100% hetero lives.

Stop cursing and deal with reality.

Just because the media, and the extremists say something over and over and  really loudly doesn't make it true.

quick question.

Britney Spears has had homosexual contact and experiences with women, is she gay?

What was she born?

How do you know?

Are you psychic?

by yellowdem1129 2008-11-21 10:36AM | 0 recs
Wow...just wow...

I don't know what to say to a person like you.

I'm telling you first-hand that being gay isn't a choice.

As for the Britney/Paris/Lindsays of the world or the "same-sex experience in college" people...umm...people experiment.  Whether it was a drunken mistake, curiosity, being at ease with your own sexuality, or just a carnal need to get off, that doesn't make a person gay.

What makes a person gay is the primary attraction to people of the same sex.  You can't turn it off.

"Coming out of the closet" is not a euphemism for "turning gay."  It's an acknowledgment to people that you're not hiding who you are.

by Say Car Ramrod 2008-11-21 10:40AM | 0 recs
Re: Wow...just wow...

how can you say they are experimenting, but not gay?

how do you know all of this?

can't they be bisexual?

can't they be pre-op transgendered?

On all my children, on ABC they had a

pre-operation transgendered person who was a lesbian (zoe).

no lie.

my point, you have a right to your view, your experience, and so do I and anyone else.

Also, if you want to start a business to promote your viewpoint, why should that be illegal?

If you wanted to start a Gay site, should you be forced to chane it to accomodate bisexuals or polygamists or other people?

by yellowdem1129 2008-11-21 10:43AM | 0 recs
But you have no experience being gay!

So how can you speak with any sort of authority about the gay experience when you have no experience in that area?

by Say Car Ramrod 2008-11-21 10:49AM | 0 recs
democrats should respect others

I can accept that I might be wrong. others can't fathom it.

I don't know if you or others saw the link from above: /marchweb-only/112-52.0.html

in America we should be free to run a business the way we like and to make these personal decisions the way we like for whatever reasons.

by yellowdem1129 2008-11-21 10:51AM | 0 recs
I see no evidence in your diary or comments

That you "can accept that you might be wrong."

Everything you are saying about gay people seems based on some insecurity mascarading as moral certainty.

If you're genuinely willing to educate yourself, as opposed to just looking for ancedotes to boister your delusions, why not check out a site like and read up on some case histories?

I'm willing to bet gay conversion therapies and groups have ruined more lives and possibly facillitated more suicides than they've effected permanent "conversions."

by sgary 2008-11-21 02:47PM | 0 recs
Re: Wow...just wow...

Wait... so your claim to understand GLBT people is from a character on a soap opera?!?!?!.....


by Dreorg 2008-11-21 11:02AM | 0 recs
no the point was there isn't just gay or straight

born or experimenting or learned behavior,

I used that example to say people here are trying to create a reality that doesn't exist.

life is complicated and for people to say they KNOW something for sure is bogus.

by yellowdem1129 2008-11-21 11:06AM | 0 recs

You're waaaaaaaay too obsessed with gays & lesbians.  It's coming from somewhere inside you.  You know what I'm talking about.  If you paid attention to real straight men, you'd notice they don't obsess over gays and lesbians the way you do.  

by BPK80 2008-11-22 02:17AM | 0 recs
Re: You lost me right here...

I can claim to be a genius, does that make me one?

by venician 2008-11-21 02:47PM | 0 recs

New Jersey has them.  If eHarmony doesn't like them, it doesn't have to do business in New Jersey.  It can stick to Alabama.

by JJE 2008-11-21 10:37AM | 0 recs
Re: Laws

but you would do the same in alabama too right?

if a company wanted to start a dating service for men seeking women and women seeking men only you would think they should not be allowed in any state right?

they don't have a right to start a business based on their beliefs in america, right?

by yellowdem1129 2008-11-21 10:40AM | 0 recs
Re: Laws

If I believe that Jews (like myself) are a dirty breed of subhumans, should I be allowed to run a business that refuses to serve them on that basis?  If I believe that the Bible commands the races not intermingle, whither integration?  You have no logical support for your argument.

by Jay R 2008-11-21 01:47PM | 0 recs
New Jersey's law is just

I don't think gays should be discriminated against.   There's no rational basis for doing so.

If this upsets you so, I recommend Hannidate for all your dating needs.

by JJE 2008-11-21 04:03PM | 0 recs
Re: New Jersey's law is just

Don't quote me, but I perused Hannidate once, and they do have options for men seeking men and women seeking women.  It was a couple years ago, so it's possible my memory is fuzzy here.  But I do recall seeing an ad for a gay conservative guy in Wyoming seeking the same.

And please don't inquire why I was looking.  Ask me no questions and I'll tell you no lies.

by SuperCameron 2008-11-21 05:30PM | 0 recs
O rly?

I guess the almighty dollar trumps traditional "morality" for good ol' Sean.

by JJE 2008-11-21 07:01PM | 0 recs
Re: Laws

A lot depends on the public claims the business makes about its services. The problem eHarmony has is that its founder has made statements that his software could be used for same sex dating. And that he had researched and was an expert on the subject. The claims had been made over a long period of time and had received widespread publicity. In standard commercial law and practice, when the seller claims a product can do something but refuses to sell it for that purpose, that is fraud. Had he always said that it was only for heterosexuals, he would have been off the hook. It is like selling a lotion that softens the skin, removes dead cells etc and then adding that it cures cancer. This is a claim that must be proven one way or the other. And refusing to sell it to people with cancer is not a way to prove. This was a difficult position; the only other way out for eHarmony would be to make a big fuss about how their earlier claims were fraudulant and misleading, sorry folks.

by DaleA 2008-11-21 07:44PM | 0 recs
Better title:

Homophobic bigot brings his usual hatred to My DD.

by emsprater 2008-11-21 11:02AM | 0 recs
Re: gay rights extremists bring us an

"When blacks sue to be served by the private businesses, it was to receive the same  exact service as the next person.  No better. No worse.  No different.

This person who brought the suit is forcing eharmony to have to actually change his business, change his computer programs, and now actually do something the company obviously didn't want to do."

I'm pretty sure a "whites only" restaurant had to "change its business" due to the Civil Rights Act.  Your distinction makes no sense - one only serves people of a certain race; the other only serves heterosexuals; both were forced to change.

"I think that is a horrible idea because it will re-invigorate others to use the law to force others to think a certain way."

I trust you're bright enough to see how stupid that statement is, unless of course you're arguing for a repeal of all civil rights legislation.

by rfahey22 2008-11-21 11:35AM | 0 recs
Re: gay rights extremists

I've always thought that the black / gay comparison was extremely assinine.  This is not in any way to diminish the struggle for gay rights in this country, but the analogy just isn't there.

When was the last time you met a closeted black person?  I mean, other than "Undercover Brother"?

by the mollusk 2008-11-21 11:55AM | 0 recs
But for societal convergence... could've been the other way around, with gay folks getting their civil rights recognized first and blacks pursuing their own civil rights.

The comparison is valid.  People like yellowdem preach "seperate but equal" in some cases, but are against it in others.

by Dracomicron 2008-11-21 12:26PM | 0 recs
Re: But for societal convergence...

or women, or people with disabilities, or Latinos.  I just think that each of these struggles are unique enough that it doesn't do anyone any good to make imperfect analogies.  There are certainly lessons to be learned from each of them.  But I don't expect that the black community should support gay rights any more than any other community.  I guess it would be nice, in a way, but they certainly don't owe it to anyone.  The cause of Black Civil Rights was the right thing to do in and of itself, not as a way of bringing a community on board to support other civil rights struggles.

by the mollusk 2008-11-21 12:40PM | 0 recs
Well yeah

The point is not that blacks should support gays (in a perfect world, of course they should), but that the "seperate but equal" mantra does actually apply in this situation; it doesn't make any sense to be against it in one case but not a corresponding case.

Yellowdem seems to not want for his minority group to have any similarities to another minority group.  It's understandable, just wrong.

by Dracomicron 2008-11-21 12:57PM | 0 recs
Re: Well yeah

I don't think that's entirely true. I think one of the points yellowdem was inartfully trying to make is that a gay person can - and I've known some who often do - selectively and consciously hide who they are when they feel the occasion calls for it (like with the parents, or the boss, for example). A person who is black is black ALL the time, obviously so, and can't seamlessly assimilate into other groups as easily as many gays and lesbians can just by acting like someone they're not. In that context, yes, one situation is different from the other.

by Its All So Goofy 2008-11-21 03:47PM | 0 recs
Re: Well yeah

simply not true.  many light-skinned african americans "passed" as whites.  sometimes moved to new towns and starting living "like a white person" to get away from being black where they came from.  

by bluedavid 2008-11-21 07:01PM | 0 recs
Re: Well yeah

You're a retard.

by ellington 2008-11-22 07:03AM | 0 recs
Jean Toomer

is an interesting example of this experience.

by orestes 2008-11-22 09:08AM | 0 recs
Re: gay rights extremists

I think it stems from people making corellations between The Civil Rights Movement(Trademark) and other fights for civil rights, whether founded or not.  Some people see gay people talking about gay rights issues as civil rights issues, and conflate "civil rights" with "Civil Rights."

I think that it is somewhat analagous to tensions between people of color and second-wave feminists.

by Dreorg 2008-11-21 01:13PM | 0 recs
Re: gay rights extremists

You've never heard of "passing"?

by Jay R 2008-11-21 01:45PM | 0 recs
A few thoughts
Not that it matters but there are a few things I'd like to get thru.  E-harmony has a business plan that matches "men" with "women" (much like defence of marriage laws).  What is their qualifying procedure?  How do they tell?  By looks?  Well I've got some pictures I could show you that might shake your belief in your ability to tell by looks alone.  Just take their word for it?  If they say they are male or female, then thats good enough?  Well we know these homophobes won't put up with that.  Well you see where that argument is going so I won't belabor it.
As for some of the other argument here well:
you can speak for every person alive if there aren't any people that say they are Black when all their life they said they were White... which happens
you can speak for everyone if there aren't people that say they are White when they are of African American, Native American or other ethnic heritage... which (horribly) still happens.  Well you get where I'm going here too.  Prejudice is despicable where ever it occurs.  Peace and love.
by Demo Dan in Dayton 2008-11-21 01:02PM | 0 recs

go away please.

by canadian gal 2008-11-21 01:24PM | 0 recs
Okay, Here's My Logic:

I think that any business that one should need a license to operate should not be formally (legally) allowed to discriminate. From a practical stand point, if you are gay or lesbian, you probably won't want to be served by a lawyer or a hairstylist who is known to be bigoted. Do I think that dating services that construct psychological profiles of clients for the purpose of matching them should be licensed? Well they could do severe harm by matching up the wrong people, so yes, they should be licensed. So they should not be formally allowed to discriminate.

Personally, the moment I heard that they didn't allow gays and lesbians to be clients was the moment I decided they were never going to receive a filled-out questionnaire from me!

As far as bigotry in general is concerned, it's a bad trait, but has to be put in perspective. A lot of basically nice people are bigoted. I've known people who went to jail for pot, were severely abused by people of another race, and were never able to get past that, for example. Bigotry is bad, and on average, more bigoted people are probably creepy than are non-bigoted people. But being bigoted is not so bad as, say, chopping folks up and eating them. The fault of bigotry is not the worst one, and should be viewed in perspective. No one is perfect.

I think the hyped-up pseudo-consensus that black people tend to be anti-gay and lesbian is baloney, by the way. I think it's just another divide-and- conquer ploy.

by blues 2008-11-21 01:27PM | 0 recs
Re: gay rights extremists bring us an e-harmony di

Yeah, and another thing: why are we letting women into military schools like VMI, the Citadel, West Point, or Annapolis?  Do we really want to force these schools to change their curricula just because chicks want to be treated equally?  How extremist!

by Jay R 2008-11-21 01:43PM | 0 recs
Re: I should thank you yellowdem

Apparently, if you really wanna piss him off, you should give it to Lambda Legal. :)

by Jay R 2008-11-21 01:44PM | 0 recs
Re: gay rights extremists bring us an e-harmony di

Rarely have I seen a more clueless, less informed statement of certainty as this drivel you've written today.  It's remarkably without logic, merit, or reason, and could truly only be written by someone suffering from ignorance of many, many subjects (the nature of the law included).

I'm truly impressed.

by Jay R 2008-11-21 01:54PM | 0 recs
Re: gay rights extremists bring us an e-harmony di

One last thing:

This is (ostensibly) a Progressive community.  What you've posted is an inherently libertarian, non-progressive argument (anti-equality, anti-regulatory).  I have to wonder how someone with your views came to self-identify and associate as a member of this community, given that they're so antithetical to Progressive sensibilities.

by Jay R 2008-11-21 01:58PM | 0 recs
Re: gay rights extremists bring us an e-harmony di

Honestly, this is a liberal to moderate Democratic site. I have no idea why this intolerant and frankly absurd post is even on here. If I was to write a post about blacks wanting "special rights," like this post essentially says that gays want, it would be banned outright. I don't think the fact that this commentator happens to be black gives him some authoritative right to talk dismissively about gays and how we can "change our preferences." Anyone that believes that nonsense is both a fool and, more likely than not, a Republican.

by wjpugliese 2008-11-21 03:00PM | 0 recs
if you think

equal rights is an extreme idea, then you should go the fuck away.

by citizendave 2008-11-21 03:00PM | 0 recs
Wouldn't a diary like this be more appropriate at

Free Republic or Red State Blog?  This is supposed to be a progressive blog,  and this crap of a diary doesn't belong here.  

by Sandy1938 2008-11-21 03:58PM | 0 recs
Re: gay rights extremists bring us an e-

Well, yellowdem, I have to give you some props for coming on this site and stating your opinions and then hanging around to discuss them.  I don't think your reasoning is good in every case, but at least you're willing to discuss.  Do this at the orange sewer or you'll be banned within a few hours.  In that light, here's my two cents:

First, eHarmony has to obey the laws of the states or states where they are registered and licensed.  I'm not sure which state(s) that might be, but if those laws prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation, they need to obey them.  I tend to come down on the laissez-faire side of these things, but that's just my personal preference.  By the same token, eHarmony won't get my money as long as they choose to discriminate against my wonderful gay friends.

Secondly, people do not choose their sex drive.  Some have no sex drive.  Some of us have a sex drive that moves us to battiness a couple times a day.  Nobody chooses to be gay or straight.  There's no such thing as a chosen sex drive.  It has its own velocity and direction.  To close people out from society for engaging in consentual sex with other adults is, to me, unconscionable.

I hope that you will continue to discuss, open your heart, share, and learn.

by SuperCameron 2008-11-21 05:22PM | 0 recs
Re: gay rights extremists bring us an e-harmony di

I feel I have a couple things I can add to this discussion:

1>  I find it especially strange that you have chosen this eharmony business to get your panties in a wad about dem GAYS.  You make the point over and over again in the comments that people should be able to run their business as they see fit.  But don't you realize that a huge component of the civil rights movement was to force people to run their business in to serve people they didn't want to?  What do you think all that sitting at lunch counters was about?  One of the biggest legacies of the civil rights movement is precisely that regardless of what you think about a class of people, the government can and will force you to serve them if you run a business.

2>  I have a friend studying sociology at Columbia who just did her thesis on the ex-gay movement.  She literally interviewed hundreds of ex-gay therapy participants, members of ex-gay organizations, and their peers.  She almost switched topics because she started to dread the interviews so much because they were, almost without exception, extremely depressing.  She found that the overwhelming majority of people who have been through ex-gay therapy "relapse" into homosexuality.  For the small number that form long-lasting straight relationships, those relationships are usually abstinent.  An alarmingly high rate of therapy participants commit suicide.  (she passed!)

3>  It's offensive to me, as a gay man, that you frame the determination to keep me disenfranchised of my full rights as a citizen as "traditional values."  Incidentally, for many years, owning slaves was part of the "traditional values" of this country.  Isn't that argument enough for the need of our society to progress?  It's hard to believe now that at one time presidents of this great nation owned human beings and that the government even spelled out the worth (3/5ths of a man) of a whole segment of our population.  Hopefully in not too many years, it will seem equally unbelievable that the government withheld protection from millions of loving families based strictly on who an individual was genetically predisposed to love.

by bluedavid 2008-11-21 07:19PM | 0 recs
How business works

by DaleA 2008-11-21 08:02PM | 0 recs

I'm gay and I find you are far more obsessed with homosexuality than I ever could be.  Guys like you are typically pretty fun to shack up once in a while, with all that frustration and over the top  straight acting, but don't get too cozy thinking you're friends & family aren't tuned into how bizarre your gay-fixated worldview actually is.        

by BPK80 2008-11-21 09:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Nice

I was just thinking that old yellow seems a bit obsessed with the gender of who he's flirting with on e-harmony.

by markjay 2008-11-21 09:50PM | 0 recs
Re: Nice

Well, there is that ray of hope, in the slight chance that the woman may be a man impersonating one.  

by BPK80 2008-11-22 02:24AM | 0 recs
WTF is up with all the homophobe trolls?
am i hallucinating, or have all the trolls taken up the "none of our special rights for THE GAYS!!!!" trolling points this month?
by chiefscribe 2008-11-21 09:42PM | 0 recs
Re: WTF is up with all the homophobe trolls?

This one's special.  He's always being homophobic.

by reenactor 2008-11-22 03:34AM | 0 recs
Re: gay rights extremists bring us an e-harmony di

Wow, yellow. You really are fixated.  I hope it's adult men you can't stop thinking about.

by reenactor 2008-11-22 03:36AM | 0 recs
Re: gay rights extremists bring us an e-harmony di

Gays who constantly flout their homo-ness ar basically very insecure in their sexuality.

by ellington 2008-11-22 07:08AM | 0 recs
Re: gay rights extremists bring us an e-harmony di

What's the matter, bubbie, has none of them found you attractive enough to make a pass at your sorry ass?

by emsprater 2008-11-22 10:52AM | 0 recs
I don't get your concern


Who Cares if E harmony is sued or not?

When African Americans sue private golf clubs to allow them to join, do they have a right to do that? or can we use your argument that the Private Golf Club was simply trying to run a "business" and by forcing them to accept African Americans - or even worse - God Forbid - Women - into their Golf Club the poor white male that owns it and all his friends that belong to it have to change their ways....ahhhhhh - how awful....

maybe we should force all gays to live on Fire Island where they can set up their own dating services and golf clubs and no one has to look at them....

Is that what you want?

by nikkid 2008-11-23 07:35PM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads