eHarmony will begin providing same-sex dating matches.
eHarmony will begin providing same-sex dating matches.
The AP reports that as part of a settlement with New Jersey’s Civil Rights Division, online dating service eHarmony “will begin providing same-sex matches. … Under terms of the settlement, the company can create a new or differently named Web site for same-sex singles. The company can also post a disclaimer saying its compatibility-based matching system was developed from research of married heterosexual couples.”
Until this settlement, eHarmony was more like eNeanderthal for it’s refusal to include the gay community. eHarmony was eDisharmony for being such a divisive force in shutting out so many Americans. Welcome, eHarmony, to the 21st century.That said, if any couple, same-sex or opposite-sex, wants to save money in this economy by not using eHarmony, we at Garden State Equality are willing to volunteer to match up potential couples ourselves.
We have qualified matchmakers waiting. Among our members are same-sex couples who’ve been together for decades, and opposite sex-couples who’ve been together for decades. All of them know a thing or two about love, relationships, and the burning desire to be married.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Uh-oh…I hear wingnut heads exploding already.
I like it. ;o)
November 19th, 2008 at 11:19 amIf there ever was a thread for eParodyll to post, this is it!
November 19th, 2008 at 11:20 amSame-sex, dating, litigation, lawsuits.
Only thing missing is Bogus on the Family, errrr, I mean Focus.
e-Homo-ny?
It’s about time somebody gave them the smackdown. But people should avoid that site at all costs. It’s not like these religious fanatics are going to create a site that can actually lead to fun in any form.
November 19th, 2008 at 11:20 ameHarmony will begin providing same-sex dating matches.»
– - I think that’s already been covered by Craigslist.
November 19th, 2008 at 11:20 amOh, no, now Daryyl doesn’t have to come to TP for his dates!
November 19th, 2008 at 11:20 amI’m going to miss the little fellar.
This is great. If I’m not mistaken there are some church ties to the ownership of eHarmony, and it might be the Mormon Church. Would that be cool and ironic as hell or what?? Can anyone confirm that perception of mine about the church ownership?
November 19th, 2008 at 11:21 am“…a disclaimer saying its compatibility-based matching system was developed from research of married heterosexual couples.””
eHomogeny is not responsible in any way shape or form for arguments, disputes, divorce, motel bills, medical bills, insurance claims, stiff joints from sleeping on couches, or offspring resulting from it’s services.
November 19th, 2008 at 11:25 amCue Daryll in 4…3…2…1…
November 19th, 2008 at 11:35 am“…a disclaimer saying its compatibility-based matching system was developed from research of married heterosexual couples.”
so e-harmony can’t possibly imagine that single homosexuals are attracted by 99% of the same factors as heterosexual singles?
Like a sense of humor, politics, physical aspects, financial security, intellectual curiosity, confidence etc. ? IE COMPATABILITY?
I guess they think gay dating is like toad-sexing!
November 19th, 2008 at 11:35 amDaryll Sez:
The Lord will smite the servers of this website, and pour forth his wrath down the tubes.
November 19th, 2008 at 11:37 ami remember reading that e-harmony was connected with a religious group… that most of the happy couples happen to be fundies…
…
just heard on stephanie miller:
http://milliongaymarch.org/
.
November 19th, 2008 at 11:39 amNevar; are you subbing for Daryll?
November 19th, 2008 at 11:45 amIs it my imagination, or is there money to be made from matching people up? It would seem that if one can make money from something, that “something” would exist.
If I ran an online dating service, I would see the profit benefits of matching up gays as much as matching up heterosexuals, and I wouldn’t wait for a civil rights settlement to capitalize on it.
I’m rather surprised that the free market hasn’t taken care of this.
November 19th, 2008 at 11:49 amGays don’t need E-Harmony. Many of the other matchmaker websites like Yahoo Personals, Match.com and plentyoffish.com already allow for same sex match ups.
November 19th, 2008 at 11:57 amI think Daddy Dobson’s Focus on the Family organization had some sort of advisory role with eHarmony. Dobson has a thriving business hawking parenting programs/materials.
November 19th, 2008 at 11:58 amNevar Says:
Daryll Sez:
The Lord will smite the servers of this website, and pour forth his wrath down the tubes.
Keep trying, getting Daryll’s pious hypocrisy, with a whole lot of stupid mixed in takes a lot of practice, and possibly whacking your head with a 5 pound mallet a few times. =)
November 19th, 2008 at 11:58 amWasn’t it Chemistry.com (or maybe match.com) that actually made fun of e-Harmony in their ads for this very reason?
November 19th, 2008 at 12:00 pm#6
November 19th, 2008 at 12:01 pmYou are actually mistaken. There are no religious ties to the ownership of eHarmony. The Mormon Church has no stake in the company. Although uber-right Focus on the Family did play a key role in getting eHarmony press during the early years, that association was severed several years ago… Much to the dismay, I’m sure, of Dr. Dobson.
#Keyser Soze Says:
#6
You are actually mistaken.
Sorry Keyser – you are the one who is mistaken:
http://dir.salon.com/story/mwt/feature/2005/06/10/warren/
November 19th, 2008 at 12:16 pmI didn’t know that EHarmony didn’t offer this service before but I think it’s about time they caught up with the real world. My friends at work that like the same sex did say that in this area it is very difficult to find others to date.
But I know they have one for Repugs–it’s called
Lowered Expectations (MadTV)
**Man. can’t believe the trolls aren’t bouncing on this one!
November 19th, 2008 at 12:30 pmWell thank Dog desperate, lonely GOOPers like Larry Craig and Mark Foley will now have an easier time meeting someone, and it will finally be safe for the rest of us to use airport bathrooms again.
November 19th, 2008 at 12:47 pmThey don’t like Buddhists much either
November 19th, 2008 at 1:34 pmBilbo.
a further reading of that same article would have yielded this:
November 19th, 2008 at 1:40 pm
Just for shits and giggles a couple years ago, I filled out the survey on eHarmoney. If you select “none” on the question regarding religious affiliation, at the end you will get a notice saying they are unable to find any matches for you.
I went back in and changed my response to the minimum amount of religious activity (don’t remember what it was), and miraculously there were matches for me.
Have you seen their commercials? Seriously, I think they’re helping closeted gays already. ;)
November 19th, 2008 at 1:45 pmCurlew Says:
——————————————————————————–
This is great. If I’m not mistaken there are some church ties to the ownership of eHarmony, and it might be the Mormon Church. Would that be cool and ironic as hell or what?? Can anyone confirm that perception of mine about the church ownership?
November 19th, 2008 at 11:21 am
So your all for taking down a church? That would be cool? Why? You want to limit others in their choices?
November 19th, 2008 at 2:12 pmNILAPSTICK Says:
Curlew Says:
——————————————————————————–
This is great. If I’m not mistaken there are some church ties to the ownership of eHarmony, and it might be the Mormon Church. Would that be cool and ironic as hell or what?? Can anyone confirm that perception of mine about the church ownership?
November 19th, 2008 at 11:21 am
So your all for taking down a church? That would be cool? Why? You want to limit others in their choices?
November 19th, 2008 at 2:12 pm
Are you for limiting others in their choice of life partners?
November 19th, 2008 at 2:13 pmAre you for limiting others in their choice of life partners?
November 19th, 2008 at 2:13 pm
—-
Not at all. Are you for limiting who worships when and where?
November 19th, 2008 at 2:17 pmmisshusseinmolly Says:
——————————————————————————–
Is it my imagination, or is there money to be made from matching people up? It would seem that if one can make money from something, that “something” would exist.
If I ran an online dating service, I would see the profit benefits of matching up gays as much as matching up heterosexuals, and I wouldn’t wait for a civil rights settlement to capitalize on it.
I’m rather surprised that the free market hasn’t taken care of this.
November 19th, 2008 at 11:49 am
———–
It’s not always about money. Some people actually have core beliefs and they stand by them. I think this is one of those cases.
November 19th, 2008 at 2:20 pmNILAPSTICK Says:
Are you for limiting others in their choice of life partners?
November 19th, 2008 at 2:13 pm
—-
Not at all. Are you for limiting who worships when and where?
November 19th, 2008 at 2:17 pm
It’s not my business, and I’ve never claimed it was. Just keep it out of my face.
Thanks for clearing that up.
November 19th, 2008 at 2:24 pmThis is a bigger victory than most people may think. The founder of eHarmony had a long and close relationship with Focus on the Family. I contacted eHarmony a couple of years ago asking about same-sex matching and was told they don’t do it, won’t do it, etc. They also gave me the line about the research being based on heterosexual couples and not homosexual ones.
The sad thing for eHarmony is that they are being forced to do something that was in their interests to do all along. There is a huge market for gay and lesbians who are seeking meaningful, long term relationships. Had eHarmony looked at its bottom line instead of the biases of its leadership, this court case would never have been necessary.
I wish them luck in the new venture. Who knows, I may even give them a try.
November 19th, 2008 at 2:28 pmI work for a company that’s all about matching men with men. Personals and adult sites have known for a long time that niche is what works. Trying to be everything to everyone doesn’t foster community. That’s built around common interests, of course.
Sure, we could offer a site for heterosexuals or lesbians but why should we be forced to divert resources to that? There’s nothing remotely like a monopoly situation among personals/matching sites. No one is getting tax payer dollars and then discriminating. And this isn’t like, oh say, an airline or a restaurant where the product has absolutely nothing to do with love and/or sex between customers.
It’s not nice that someone would not provide a product like this for some people because they believe those people to be immoral. But I don’t really see a need to force a private business to offer a product they have no interest in — in this case that being romantic matches for people of the same sex.
And back to the forced diversion of resources, our company is struggling with finances at this point (ad dollars are drying up) so I can’t even imagine what it would do to us if we were legally forced to spend money developing and maintaining a new product.
November 19th, 2008 at 2:52 pmKeyser Soze Says:
Although uber-right Focus on the Family did play a key role in getting eHarmony press during the early years, that association was severed several years ago… Much to the dismay, I’m sure, of Dr. Dobson.
November 19th, 2008 at 12:01 pm
______
He’s probably pretty happy about it now, though. ;)
November 19th, 2008 at 2:58 pmI am having a hard time understanding this. And I am bisexual and like men now and again.
How can a company providing a dating service to heterosexuals be construed as depriving a gay of their human rights.
I don’t have an exact count but there are 13 different internet sites, that I know of, offering dating matches and services to the GLBT community.
So again explain how I am having my human rights violated. eHarmony does not do gay dating so as a free citizen in a free country making a free choice I DO NOT DO BUSINESS with them. I go to the companies that do allow gay dating.
This is an assault on freedom of choice and freedom of expression.
What next? Are you going to pass civil rights legislation that forces ladies wear companies to sell me, a man, the lingerie I like to wear so badly(yeah transgendered too)? Or are you just going to leave it alone and let someone who wants to make money off me open a shop that caters to my tastes. That is the free market in a democratic society like the USA.
This is a far different scenario than a government passing laws forbidding citizens the same rights as someone else. This is about a business catering to it’s niche market. They are not infringing on anyones civil rights. There are plenty of alternative gay dating sites.
This is what the right screams about when they argue against gay rights. It is gays forcing everyone to cow down to their needs and wants. This is about forcing the gay lifestyle on heterosexuals against their will. And that is no better than the treatment we get in return for being gay or transgendered. How about a law forcing an exclusively gay dating site to setup and be forced to allow heterosexual dating on their site.
This is hypocritical to the extreme.
November 19th, 2008 at 4:25 pmToo little too late. They’ll never get any money from me. It’s not that they had a ‘change of heart’. It’s about money.
November 19th, 2008 at 5:47 pm#33 – upnorth Says:
——————————————————-
“This is what the right screams about when they argue against gay rights. It is gays forcing everyone to cow down to their needs and wants. This is about forcing the gay lifestyle on heterosexuals against their will. And that is no better than the treatment we get in return for being gay or transgendered. How about a law forcing an exclusively gay dating site to setup and be forced to allow heterosexual dating on their site.
This is hypocritical to the extreme.”
November 19th, 2008 at 4:25 pm
There are a number of gay-dating sites in which you’ll find a heterosexual man/woman who puts up an add. They are not specifically blocked from adding a profile. They just don’t get many hits.
eHarmony actively excluded anyone who was looking for a same-sex partner. The minute you put “Man looking for man” you received a message that they were unable to match you with anyone in their database. Why? Because the actively blocked any of these profiles from ever being entered in their website.
So much for “equal treatment”.
As for your straw-man argument about being denied the right to buy lingerie, you are not blocked at the door from entering the establishment, are you?
November 20th, 2008 at 6:12 am