Oh eHarmony, you shouldn't have! Actually, you wouldn't have if your asses weren't brought to court for discrimination.
While this should be considered a victory, it still pisses me off to no end. After the New Jersey Attorney General's Division on Civil Rights (DCR) brought eHarmony to court for their discriminatory policy that doesn't match same-sex couples on the site (not surprisingly, the online dating service has ties to Focus on the Family), eHarmony settled by agreeing to launch a same-sex matching service, Compatible Partners in 2009. eHarmony attorney Theodore B. Olson said:
"Even though we believed that the complaint resulted from an unfair characterization of our business, we ultimately decided it was best to settle this case with the Attorney General since litigation outcomes can be unpredictable. eHarmony looks forward to moving beyond this legal dispute, which has been a burden for the company, and continuing to advance its business model of serving individuals by helping them find successful, long-term relationships."
A day after the New Jersey settlement, a woman in California was ok'ed to file a class action lawsuit against the company.
Salon's Rebecca Traister conducted an interview with Christian evangelical founder Neil Clark Warren a while back where she asked him why he wouldn't include same-sex marriages in eHarmony. He first claimed there wasn't adequate research on how to match same-sex couples, then got into rhetoric about the Bible, yet followed that with a story about his best friend's daughter being gay, where he concludes: "She's a dear person to us, and a very strong spiritual person . . . And when I start seeing things like that, I think we've got to start to think about that maybe this can work."
Apparently not; this interview was three years ago. So three years and a lawsuit later, yay for eHarmony?! What also irks me is that they're creating a new site rather than integrating same-sex matches into eHarmony.com. Obviously having an online dating service just for same-sex matches is not a bad thing, but I don't doubt eHarmony decided to go through the trouble of building a whole new site rather than integration to avoid the infection o' sins of their beloved hetero online service. And where does that leave bisexuals?
With all that being said, would you use Compatible Partners once it launches?
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: eHarmony settles lawsuit by launching same-sex matching service.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/10566
I think a large reason eHarmony is only for heterosexual couples is so that they can proudly boast their statistics for matching the most now-married couples than any other dating site. Because apparently, being married is the only way to prove that your relationship is long term and important. (ew.) Obviously gay couples can't get married, so the stats of their coupling success isn't "important".
In any case, I know people who have been rejected from eHarmony because their personality is "incompatible" with their system. Like, I don't even know what that means! I guess only "normal" people are allowed to get a date?
I don't know. I'm in a permanent relationship anyways. But even if I wasn't, I wouldn't use their site(s). They are smelly.
I suspect I was rejected because I've struggled with depression. If you answer ANY of the questions concerning having ever, at any point in your life, no matter how far in the past, felt depressed, it rejects you.
An alternate viewpoint on this is provided by a large number of comment writers on Christian sites.
They are (of course) up in arms about this. But many see this as a face-saving way for Neil Clark Warren to expand his business. In other words, he can claim that a lawsuit forced his hand when other evangelicals question his credentials. Despite the fact that the suit was settled out of court.
None of this, of course, takes away from the original suit or from the obviously discriminatory practices of E-Harmony. Just points out that businesses usually find a way to turn lemons in lemonade.
What if you are bisexual? You have to set up (and pay for) both sites? Or could you get a subscription or whatever to both? I think Danyell might be on to something with the "successful marriage rate" thing. And I'm mostly hetero and engaged, so I probably won't be using either site.
That's EXACTLY what I was thinking! Once again, bisexuals are left out in the cold by the straight-gay binary.
That's the other point I wanted to make. I guess if you were bi-sexual, then you would have to sign up with both? People always forget or disregard bisexuals. Or they think it's a phase, so when you decide what you really are, then you can pick a site! (blarg)
One could always use OKCupid or one of the other numerous free bi friendly sites. I'd never pay for any dating site, especially one run by religious homophobes.
LOOOOOVE OkCupid!
They have ALWAYS been all-inclusive. AND they are completely open and even proud of their huge poly base. Seriously, if you are poly and having difficulties finding people to connect with, try OkCupid.
And what's great about OkCupid is that it's not JUST dating -- I've found some amazing friends, there, too, and there are so many different types of people on that site.
It's perhaps my favorite networking site out there, even if sometimes it's a bit clunky.
This reminds me of the SNL skit MeHarmony. I couldn't dig up a video but I did find a transcript http://snltranscripts.jt.org/04/04lmeharmony.phtml
Now that he has to spend time and money creating an "alternative" site, wouldn't it be great in the gay community completely boycotted his site after the lawsuit?
Here it is:
http://www.isoprophlex.com/pages/popup/snl_meharmony.php
Wow, way to downgrade same-sex relationships by taking "love" out of the equation. The title alone sounds condescending.
"Compatible Partners" - sounds like a work training exercise to me. So same-sex relationships are just about compatibility, not love, trust, etc.
And "the site for long-term committed relationship", they should add an extra line saying "but not marriage!!", that's what that line implies to me.
This site sounds more like a business transaction.
Maybe I'm looking too much into this, but just reading the site's name infuriated me. Maybe I should have taken a breath before writing out this comment.
N'ah, you're not looking too much into it. The title is cold, clinical, and really generic. Partners in what? It's like whoever came up with it wanted to be distanced as much as possible from the fact that people of the same gender ewwwwwww kiss each other.
ES, these were my immediate feelings after reading this as well. The name "Compatible Partners" itself just smacks of condescension and propaganda to me. Maybe in a different context (founded by a different company, with a different background, for a different reason, etc) I might feel differently, but all things considered, it makes me want to grind my teeth down to nubs.
That's exactly what I was thinking too. It sounds like they're really trying to rub it in that gay couples can't get married except in certain places. It doesn't seem like they're going to try very hard to make this site successful.
This is pretty much exactly how I reacted too (plus annoyance of their having created an entirely separate site in the first place). It sounds like you're setting up a law practice, not looking for love. Shades of "civil union" vs. "marriage."
I'm really at a loss why they need an entirely separate site.
Then again, I'm flabbergasted at Danyell's comment that there are people who have been rejected from the site. I thought on dating sites, you just put up a profile and went looking at other peoples' profiles to find someone who interests you. I only curiously dabbled on Match and JDate a few years ago, so what do I know...
When you sign up, you have to fill out a very long personality profile questionnaire. It claims that it gets to the real root of who you are as a person, and thus can match you with a partner for reasons far beyond physical attraction.
Which means I guess that some people have...bad personalities?
I don't think there's any notion that anyone has a "bad personality" on eHarmony, just that there may be more chance of success when people are matched more closely on personality. I don't want to defend their practice of exclusion based sexual orientation, but the general concept of matching couples on likes/dislikes, etc seems sound enough. Or at least a refreshing change from the meat market of Match and services like it. I'm glad they've added a new site. Seems to me that they could have easily integrated it into the old one, but maybe they're scared of losing business from the evangelical crowd.
Disclosure: I used the service and am engaged to one of my matches.
And now they are ignoring bisexuals, or making us sign up and pay for TWO SITES.
True enough, sadly. Since the site isn't even up though (except for a preview front page), perhaps now is the right time to approach them with suggestions that they allow options for seeking "male", "female", or "either", or something along those lines.
"I don't think there's any notion that anyone has a "bad personality" on eHarmony, just that there may be more chance of success when people are matched more closely on personality."
And yet, if eHarmony is rejecting people's profiles that implies at the very least that their personality has been deemed not-good-enough-for-eHarmony.
Actually. My bf's cousin who is way cool but who I would never date or set up with a friend because she is, well, I guess I would describe as selfish in relationships or too demanding (I want someone to worship me and do all the work who I can treat like shit), was rejected and given a full refund. I actually like how they do that because it is way more honest then setting her up with someone who expects to be respected and it not work out.
Basically, yes there are bad personalities, especially for romantic relationships which I think require some maturity and respect to last long-term (which is the site's objective). Not that everyone doesn't deserve love but that doesn't mean that they will necessarily find it. (plenty of disgusting people out there like abusers and rapists who I would be happy if they never found love...maybe just die in a ditch somewhere from being pathetic)
Shame on eHarmony for excluding non-hetero people though.
Oh, and I forgot to say that obviously, just because someone is rejected doesn't mean they have a bad personality. I'd probably be rejected cause I'm a little off mainstream. Just that there ARE people with personalities that are hard to match for a healthy relationship.
Or more like, they have a hard time matching certain personalities because they don't fit into a neat little box of heterosexual, Christian-like persnalities.
Probably both.
Unlikely both. More likely they have a pretty narrow box of personalities that they match, and reject the others. Period. If you look down thread, you'll notice that it seems they might discriminate against those who identify as obese. Same thing.
I doubt it's "some personalities are hard to match!" but rather" some personalities don't match our idea of perfect personalities to match!"
Totally anecdotal, I know, but -- Past experience says that I am pretty easy to match, actually ;) I am pretty off-kilter, non-mainstream, etc, though, so I'd be willing to bet a pretty significant amount of money that they'd reject me. Sucks to be them if interesting people can't use their site.
I'd never use one of their sites. Using either of their site would be like saying: "Now that you've had a lawsuit for descrimination and have been forced to open a website that you clearly don't agree with, I'd like to show my support for your contribution to the world. And while your taking my tainted money, could you tell me which site the bisexuals sign up for? Or do I have to sign up for both?"
How the hell am I going to get this pesky religion stain out of my commerce?
I want Dr. Creepy of eHarmony to have to film commercials at gunpoint with a gay couple he's brought together, preferably two guys about his age who say "Thanks, Doc" before each giving him a kiss on the cheek.
A kiss on the cheek? That is WAY too gay. A firm handshake ought to do it.
That's the point, dude.
yea, i was continuing the joke, person.
No dice. These people ain't getting my money. Their ties to Focus on the Family and Dobson are troublesome too.
I can't see myself ever using a dating site that requires payment. But even if I got fed up with the free ones, I'd still never utilize eHarmony or Compatible Partners. First off, I'm bi, and I don't like that I'd have to choose which sex to seek. Second, a few months back they had an ad in which it was strongly implied that a happily married couple that resulted from a meeting through eHarmony would never have happened if he had put on his profile that he plays the accordion. I mean, wow. I didn't know that having a non-mainstream musical talent meant a life of utter rejection and loneliness.
It's OK though - I suspect the disdain is mutual. I don't have to take their personality test to know that if there are people they reject, I am one of the ones they would reject. Me and my crazy non-traditional ideas about life!
Why should they be forced to accommodate any particular type of user on their privately owned web site?
If this were some government site, it'd be different. But this is a private business. If pridedating.com wants to refuse to accept straight people, that's OK too, right?
Here is information on the state law at issue, which includes sexual orientation.
Why should a restaurant run by racists be forced to accept black customers? Why should a store owner perfectly content with non-disabled people have to install a ramp? I suppose you could try to repeal the Civil Rights and Americans with Disabilities Acts, respectively, since it's kind of the same argument (statutorily speaking).
As to why any LGBT person would want to use the service, that's a greater mystery altogether.
I am interested in your thoughts on the other issue fembot pointed out. I think this rule pretty clearly makes it illegal to have a dating site for only gay people, or for only black people, or for only any group that wants to exclude any other group.
Basically, all sites must be completely heterogeneous. Is that the desired result? Should it be illegal for black people who only want to date other black people to create any private forum with that purpose, because it is inherently discriminatory?
I am trying to think of gay-only personals. I think most such personals tend to be all-inclusive, from what I can tell -- presumably they SAY they are for gays and bisexuals, but of course straights can join too and look for the opposite sex.
Anyone know of a gay-only personal site?
I don't see any way for someone supporting this lawsuit to allow a pridedating.com to refuse straight people, or any other website to refuse anyone whatsoever.
This bothers me a lot too. Not even using the private company vs. public company distinction, (which is also valid) these are specialized services. This is not about equal opportunities, this is about personal taste. However abhorrent you find someone's personal taste, do you really want to forcibly regulate it by law?
There are websites for black people to find other black people. Or white men to find asian women. Or white women to find hispanic men. Should these sites all be illegal? You are making a company do something, but you're sending a deeper message than that. You are saying that straight Christians do not have a right to privately band together and seek other straight Christians. I find that message fundamentally troublesome.
If they were honest about what they're doing, I'd buy that argument. But they're billing themselves as this sort of all-encompassing relationship solution for EVERYONE. Have you seen their commercials? Nothing specifically Christian in them at all. Nothing specifically anti-gay, unless you count that it's all hetero couples, but then look at the rate of representation of homo couples in general media and that's not too far a stretch, particularly as they're discussing married couples. They don't advertise as "a dating website for straight Christians to find other straight Christians." If they did, this would be less of a problem. But they want to pretend to be inclusive in the public eye without having to back it up, and I'm glad somebody called them on it. I'd have been equally happy if they'd have just had to start outright advertising in their commercials "This service is only intended for heterosexual Christians seeking marriage."
So there's no problem with the concept of a private organization with a patently discriminatory clientele, as long as they are explicit about it, the problem is that this site is not being explicit enough?
I am fine with that.
All personals I've ever seen let you sign up, regardless of race or sex. Though their focus is for one sex or race or one religion or whatever, they don't barr you from joining. For instance, most gay personals let you sign up as a man or woman (or "other" I'd assume) and let you search for any sex you want, even though their focus is on queer dating. eHarmony actually said, "Nope, can't join! Not allowed!"
They are purposely rejecting customers who are willing to pay from using their service. If you allow that then you are allowing segregation.
Stuff like pridedating.com have been set up as a response to the anti-gay format of most dating sites. But I just looked at that site. It it lets you search for both men & women. So even though it's advertised as gay, it is inclusive for everyone. YAY!
Unlike straight people, queer people are a protected class in New Jersey - I believe under all state civil rights law, not just employment.
If you don't think straight people are a protected class in NJ, and indeed the nation, you need to look at marriage laws, tax laws, inheritance laws...
"Protected class" here is a legal term which is given to minorities or other oppressed groups to legally prevent discrimination. "Suspect class" is a similar term. Straight people would not be labeled a "protected class" because they have no need to be protected by the law - as you point out, the laws already favor them.
And perhaps you need to look at civil rights law if you don't know what "protected class" means.
The government didn't force anyone to do anything in this case- they settled out of court. So don't worry.
OKCupid ftw. I don't pay for it. Never have, never will. I'm married, so eHarmony would probably reject me anyway. Alack!
Anyway, I'm as offended by the "Compatible Partners" title as the next queer, which I'm surprised hasn't been brought up here. Could the title be ANY more grudging?
It was brought up, way up thread.
Anyway, yay OkCupid!
It's like they're deliberately trying NOT to get any business on the second site. I mean, really. No mention of love, of relationships, shit. They took all the romance out of it.
And as another bisexual who would have to use both services, fuck a whole bunch of that.
Besides, even if I was only looking for an opposite-sex partner, I'd never use eHarmony; I apply the same standards to them as any other decision about how to spend my money, and since I know they've got ties to Focus On Your Own Damn Family and Daddy Dobson, I wouldn't spend my money there even if they were the gayest of gay-service providers.
eHarmony rejected me, I was signing up for the free trial as a joke, and it told my I didn't fall into one of their easy to place personality types.
I'm a member of an online size acceptance group. One particularly large woman tried to sign up for eharmony, completed their ridiculously long and vague questionnaire, which amongst other things, asked for her body shape, only to be rejected without sufficient reason. We did an experiment in which many of us all registered twice with the site -- the only difference in the registrations being what we listed our body shape as. Across the board, it seems as if eharmony also discriminates against people who identify as obese.
I'm no stranger to online dating -- I met my now husband through Yahoo personals. I wouldn't use any eHarmony service regardless if I were straight and especially if I were gay.
That's super lame. I would like to see them try to explain how size is a personality trait. :/
That's interesting. I've thought about trying to sign up again and change a few things to see what made me be "rejected" I'm about a size 6 or 8, so unless they're REALLY fat-haters and will exclude anyone with the slightest amount of body fat, I have a feeling that wasn't the reason (note: I'm not saying that I think plus size people in some way "deserve it more," I'm just saying that if they're rejecting anyone who isn't below the current publicly accepted average, their fat hate goes deeper than normal.)
According to Wikepedia, the reasons people are rejected tend to be because they're married, under 18, or gave "inconsistant answers," whatever that means.
You might consider that a positive thing. The people on those damn commercials scare me.
Full disclosure: I have several friends who have used e-Harmony (successfully and not) and am in no way stating that everyone who uses eHarmony is frightening.
I filled in their ridiculous questionnaire to see if I'm part of the "unmatchable" 20% and they let me through. Even though I included that I'm an atheist who doesn't want kids.
Maybe it's because I used the Canadian site.
I think the difference is the fact that eHarmony deliberately excludes people. JDate may be "for" Jewish singles, but anyone can sign up. I'm welcome to join any dating service or networking group whether I'm a part of it or not. I just have to be prepared for the fact that I, a hetero woman looking for a hetero man, am probably not going to get too many hits on a sight catering to gay men. It's a case of individuals not choosing me vs. an organization not choosing me. One is just life, and the other is illegal.
Er, "site." (Typing too fast again...)
Nope, I will not use them. I am bisexual. How is it fair to me that I have to use TWO services, if I am looking for either sex?
If they had intergrated the two into eHarmony, then you could also include bisexuals.
Now we're, surprise! once again forgotten.
Fuck 'em.
Oooh, another lawsuit idea: Anyone want to sue 'em for forgetting bisexuals? And making bisexuels interested in either sex pay for TWO services? Because I could see how forcing people to pay for TWO services could be fought against. Anyone? Bueller?
As much as it pains me when companies like this are stupid and homophobic, I object to using the force of law to make a website change. That makes me very nervous. It's much better to not use the website, and encourage others not to. Plus, it doesn't involve the government having too much power.
So no, I can't cheer this one. Wish I could.
...So you're a-ok with discrimination? So ... businesses can choose to discriminate against gays or blacks, and you're okay with that, becaus you'd rather the government keep out of it? So you're okay with Prop 8 passing? I see.
You can't start from a premise that "the government should not force a private entity to serve gay people" and end up concluding that "the government should forbid the establishment of legal marriage contracts between gay people".
You have used this leap of logic to accuse the parent poster of being a bigot. That is unfair.
You can't start from a premise that "the government should not force a private entity to serve gay people" and end up concluding that "the government should forbid the establishment of legal marriage contracts between gay people".
You have used this leap of logic to accuse the parent poster of being a bigot. That is unfair.
The problem is, it's against NJ law. They didn't invent something new here, the NJ law says you can't discriminate based on sexual orientation, among a whole bunch of other classes. The website did not pass muster with the state of NJ. So they were sued.
No, I certainly wouldn't use their site. Either of them. I agree with all the posters above that the name is clinical and insulting, it's exclusive of bisexuals, and insulting in general. It's basically a way of saying "My parents said I have to invite you to the party, but you can just go stand over there in the corner." Screw them. There's plenty of other sites that are just fine and dandy with my being bi, pagan, musical, what-the-heck-ever. Some of my closest friends are also on OKCupid. ;)
Regected User here!
I filled out the questionaire a few years ago. I was lonely and wanted to meet people, mostly I was curious to see who they would match me with. But after filling out the questionaire completely honestly. Overweight, bisexual and non-christian. They told me that unfortunatly I'm one of the 20% of the population that cannot be matched by their site. I was never told WHY. Just that they couldn't help me.
That is what bothered me, what was it about me that made me unsuitable? I think it would be fair to tell people that. If I was actually interested in using their service seriously, and wanted to find my life partner, recieving that message would be a blow. Why am I not good enough? Does that mean that I'll never find love? People deserve to be told the truth, but they don't even advertise that you could be REJECTED.
As for their new site, I call bullshit. It's halfassed and obviously they don't care AT ALL. I think they need to be called on this crap and I think other people deserve to know. Love doesn't fit in to their narrow minded view and since they are being forced to acknowledge that, they are going to make as small an effort as possible.
It's only because you don't fit into a little box of heterosexual, Christian, submissive woman, not because you are damanaged in any way.
20% is not a small number. It's not that they can't match that 20%, but that they won't.
Count yourself lucky that you're not like them!
So they put up a separate site for gays. But gays probably won't use it, because of all of the reasons mentioned here. The site goes under and eHarmony says "See? Gays aren't interested in committed relationships. They obviously don't need gay marriage, either."
It all makes me sad. And mad. No winners here. If they had done it on their own, or if they had integrated it in with the current site, teh gays might win.
I think you hit the nail on the head. I'm surprised nobody has said this more explicitly.
They're being forced to make a separate website. If nobody signs up for it, they don't have to improve the matching system or pay for advertising. They can just ignore it. And they will.
It seems like a bad application of the law. A restaurant that is not handicap accessible isn't allowed to create a second location that is handicap accessible; they have to prove handicap access to their original location.
When I heard the name of the site, I literally yelped, "No way!" It's the worst name for a dating site. "Compatible partners." Glad to know my girlfriend (my "partner") and I aren't "in love", we're "compatible".
I met her on OKCupid.com, a site that doesn't make bisexuals select either/or.
And OkCupid is way cool with poly people, too, and you can make yourself "available" -- meaning you're in a relationship, but open to other people. Most sites don't include that.
I also love the search option for "bi-friendly peope" -- people that may not be bi, but because of their profile or answers or whatever, are likely open to dating bisexual people (like, a straight man). It's almost as if OkCupid made a point to be all-inclusive.
Separate but equal? No. The former is never the latter.
Wow... separate but (probably not) equal much? This reeks of segregated water fountains and trips to the back of the bus. I just hope some day people will look back on this with disgust in a similar way to racial segregation in the 60's and prior.
I tried the profile. I'm a slim heterosexual woman, but I was rejected the first time because I am an atheist. I went back and re-did the profile, this time softer on the religious beliefs, and was accepted.
Blegh.
If the site is supposed to match you based on who you 'really are' why the fuck do I have to lie to get on it???
Just want to give an official heads up to OkCupid. Seriously. It's the best "dating" site out there -- for straights, bisexuals, poly, and single people. I've met some amazing people there, romantic and otherwise.
Besides the problems of the new site being separate but "equal" and discrimination against bisexuals. I would never give eHarmony a cent, because I bet they use part of their profits to fund things like Prop H8.
I keep coming back to "He first claimed there wasn't adequate research on how to match same-sex couples"
Because same-sex couples are based on an ENTIRELY different foundation than straight couples? Or is this website run by the types of people who not-so-elegantly try to figure out, "But if they're both men, which one does the manly relationship stuff and which one does the womanly relationship stuff?"
This has nothing to do w/ gay rights. This is simply unfair. i can't believe eHarmony settled. First, they are a private site. they have every right to discriminate who they will match. What about Black dating sites, Jewish dating sites, and even GAY dating sites??? Must they now accept white, Christian, and straight ppl to their sites? this makes no sense.
You might try reading the rest of the comments for answers to all your questions. It's all been covered already.
Yeah, the title and tagline reminds me of something (awesome) comedian Jennie McNulty said in one of her performances: "'Domestic Partners' makes it sound like we clean houses together." "Compatible Partners" sounds like they think queer relationships are part of the cold, calculated "gay agenda" that seeks to take over the world and make all their innocent little children into teh ghey.
And I echo all the other bi's on here on the invisibility issue.
I'm in a long-term relationship, so I'm not in the market for their product, but I wouldn't use it anyway, even if it did somehow allow for bi use. Not interested in being connected with Focus on the Family in any way (except for throwing away my mother's copies of the newsletter when I get her mail...heehee).
A Christian friend of mine tried eHarmony. For some reason, they don't have any distinctions in different branches of Christianity, and they kept trying to set her up with the uber-conservative types. It drove her nuts. She's a progressive Christian, and there's no way she'd ever be compatible with someone who took the Bible as literal fact.
So yeah, it doesn't even work for Christian heterosexuals unless they're also conservative.
I do not like this at all. I believe eHarmony should have had this feature to begin with, however, I freelance making and hosting websites for people and I do not like the idea that the government will be forcing features onto my site that are not compatible with it. If a site wishes to be niche (straight, bi, gay, black, etc) it should be. The same goes for when Google was forced to take in Anti-abortion ads because it was said to be discrimination. They made that choice and I believe it was their right.
Luckily for me I host my servers outside the US so I have less chance of being sued under US law.
I agree with those who do not think a private website should be dictated to by the government. Its their site, let them do what they do. To me its like conservatives demanding rebuttal time here.
eHarmony should never have done this. The fact that they did just means it was cost-effective for them (cheaper than the litigation which would have gone on and on, no doubt...).
There are plenty of websites for gays and lesbians. It is so wrong to force anybody to integrate gay interests into something that starts out marketed for heterosexuals. It's wrong and it doesn't win any points for the gay community displaying basically a 'legal thug' mentality.
I disagree. I think Eharmony's exclusion of gay people is unfair. It is certainly not the most egregious instance of discrimination in our society, but it does seem to play into destructive fantasies of a simpler world in which gay people don't exist to trouble straights. This is a little too Stepford Wife-y for my taste. There is so much beauty to be found in diversity - and to use the obvious gay metaphor - looking past black and white to appreciate all the colors of the rainbow.
I'm a computer scientist and a total cynic, so I've easily devised an profound understanding of exactly how this new site will work.
Sign up,
Site finds compatible partner ...
Partner found: Jesus.
Read his book.
"Next!"
-- Does anybody remember a time when a Jesus fish on sombody's car wasn't a warning sign?
I must apologise for not hitting my google reader up, its been the week before black friday, and I am a retailer. Let me say that I think that the lawsuit was a load of bull. I'm not going to sue Jdate becasue I'm not a jew or Millionairematch because I'm not a millionaire (yet...) I know that this is going to sound incredibly conservative, but let the market place deal with it. A truly competitive site for lbgtq could make a seriuos deal of cash. and while I'm not LBGTQ I'm not going to sue.
Eharmony excludes all sorts of people, not just gays. Their personality profile questions stress faith and family values. If you aren't one of their cookie cutter people, all of a sudden their system doesn't work for your percentage of the population.
If you're really pissed off, go to okcupid and avoid eHarmony entirely. If you really feel that you must pay money, go to Chemistry.
As a polyamorous, kinky, bisexual atheist, I could take offense to this page: http://www.eharmony.com/singles/servlet/welcome?cmd=welcome
However, I just choose to avoid eHarmony altogether. Any intelligent person that I would like to meet up with wouldn't dare sign up for eHarmony. Why should I be bothered? They don't offer what I want or need and forcing them to do so will only result in them offering a bad service. I'd rather sign up with a service that includes all people and enjoys doing it.