More harm than good, this lawsuit. If you don't like the way they work then don't use them. It's not like there are no other options.

I don't what pressurng eHarmony to pair up gays would accomplish. It's clear they don't want to; if forced to, does anyone believe they will provide a level of service that would be worth buying?

Didn't you just say *this morning* that gay bars shouldn't be able to restrict their patronage to men? http://slog.thestranger.com/2007/05/daddys_girl

And now you're saying that dating sites should be able to restrict their clients to breeders? That must be a new record for Stranger turnaround..

In this case, I've have to side with Jim Crow idiom "separate but equal"

Good catch, Gen. But I said they shouldn't--not that they shouldn't be able to, just that they shouldn't. And for the same reasons: bad business practices. Go re-read my AM post, and then this one. There's no conflict.

The commercials ARE annoying and they're ubiquitous as well. And you know, there is that hint of "We've found someone to breed with" permeating throughout.

The irritation factor is the same with the Sandals Resorts commercials. Those resorts don't allow gay couples - just heteros - to spooge up their suites. How'd you like to have to change the sheets at a Sandals Resort, eh?

It pisses me off because it's just one more little slap in the face saying, "You aren't one of us." It's demeaning even though you'd NEVER catch me checking-in at Sandals.

@3 -- It didn't read to me that they shouldn't be allowed to restrict their patronage, just that it was not a wise idea to do so. I don't see where it benefits anyone for eHarmony to change their policy, just like I don't see how I or any other straight would benefit if a dating site tailored for gays changed their policy. If you can explain a benefit, I might change my mind.

@2 -- That's the first thing that came to my mind, too.

This lawsuit sounds like ax grinding on the plaintiff's part, unless eHarmony's methods really are scientific (which I kinda doubt).

Don't they discriminate against the god-challenged as well? Or has that been debunked?

the sandals policy was changed:
http://www.gayteens.org/714/Article733.html

I don't think I've ever seen a person of color on any of eHarmony's commercials either. They seem to cater to white Christians. I have a friend who is an Atheist who got rejected from eHarmony, despite the fact she is beautiful and an executive for a NW company. I told her to stick to the Stranger's personals.

I always thought eharmony's goal was to marry people off. So if they allowed gay men and women to be members, it'd defeat their purpose. Not saying that I agree, just playing devil's advocate. There are tons of dating sites, so suing seems pointless. If gay marriages became legal and eHarmony still rejected applications based on sexual preference, then I'd say you have a lawsuit on your hands. Maybe...

Really? It seems that half of the people on the eHarmony sites are people of color.

Trust me on this; I watch a lot of late night television.

@ 11 there is a black couple in their latest ad.

@ 9 not sure if it's written in their TOS but the questionnaire is definitely set up in favor of Christianity. So it'd be no surprise if people were rejected for not having certain beliefs/morals.

sorry, but comparing eHarmony to slave4master.com is like comparing the Donnie and Marie Show to a Nine Inch Nails Video.

...and apparantely they also discriminate against short men. Way to go, "e"!

On April 2, 2007, NOSSA called for a boycott of the online dating website eHarmony. Their press release cited:

"Suspicions have been confirmed after numerous tests indicated that the exact same responses to the website’s membership questionnaire, with the exception of physical height, resulted in either approval of membership (when an acceptable tall height was submitted) or denial of membership (when a short height was submitted). These tests were conducted numerous times to ensure accuracy. The National Organization Of Short Statured Adults has requested a full explanation from the company but has yet to receive a response."

OHMYGOD, i am joining NOSSA right away!

Several years ago I used to work for a company in Bellevue that was not eHarmony, but pretty much went by the same practices: compatibility test, no homosexual couplings, no shorties (men), and positively nobody broke (because they charged anywhere from five hundred to two-thousand dollars for these people to be paired up. And actually, that should read ugly people. Sweet Jesus, the pictures made my stomach turn.)

That said, I don't see what the big deal is. They're not the only dating site on the web and if they can't cater to you, they can't make money off of you, a key for businesses to, you know, stay in business.

I've never seen the allure of eharmony for straight or gay people.

But I suppose if you were a conservative Christian gay person ... well you know whose dating service you COULD use? Sean Hannity's Hannidate. He's happy to serve the gays!

Thanks for the update, jkjk. That's nice to know.

I'm missing something here. Isn't there a world of difference between, "Truthfully? We don't get much interest here for gay match-ups, but we'll be happy to take your application if you want to file one," and, "No gays!"?

I mean, really. Who'd want anything to do with eHarmony anyway. That smarmy, syrupy old codger who acts like he gets a semi at the thought of all the coupling he'll going to be doing throughout the day - so excited is he that he'd almost be willing to do it for free, right? Ka-ching.

Between rejecting gays, atheists, and short men, are there any Stranger readers eligible for eHarmony? (I suspect tall women are kicked out too)

I've also heard about Christians complaining about eHarmony insisting on setting them up with ugly/poor/stupid/fat fellow parishioners they had already rejected in person.

Yap yap yap. Have any of you actually gone and tried the eHarmony site? The online form takes anywhere from 45 to 90 minutes to fill out, and it's the biggest load of psychobabble/Christian B.S. you've ever seen. I know, because I had to research their site.

Contrast this with Manhunt.net--where you can get a handful of tweaking manorexic homos delivered to your apartment within a matter of seconds after signing in. Now that I think of it, I think I'll just stick to picking up guys on the street, the way God intended.

Couldn't agree with Dan more... what's wrong with a little freedom to not associate? Not everything needs nor should be inclusive to ever single damn fucking person who shows up asking to be let in. Democracy in action... just as long as they aren't dicks about it, tho. There are laws against those sorts of shenanigans.

I DO remember though several years ago that when they were first challenged, EHarmony fired back with some convoluted line about their 57,000,000 points of compatibility (or whatever their 'scientific' method was) worked only for heterosexual coupling. I was curious and did the free questionaire - not one damn thing that couldn't apply to me. If only for their lack of any kind of honesty or balls, I hope she sues the pants off them! (Or maybe she can settle in court to make that creepy-looking founder-guy never star in the commercials again!!)

the marketplace is already speaking--chemistry.com is already making fun of eHarmony.com's antigay policy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NgxOhG2nDOA&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fandrewsullivan%2Etheatlantic%2Ecom%2Fthe%5Fdaily%5Fdish%2F2007%2F05%2Fthe%5Fbest%5Frespon%2Ehtml

well all i know is that i do a bunch of different online market research type of things (you take a survey, go to a website, get an email, whatever, get points - i like to fuck with them sometimes - plus it's fun to think that i could be making $250,000 a year when it's not even one tenth of that in all honesty) and one of them had an offer for points if i clicked over to eharmony's site - so i did, and having NOT been subjected to their commercials i thought that i'd look into what kind of women seeking women they might have. well when i saw that there wasn't a way to put in that i was a woman seeking a woman, i wrote an email to them...what'd i get in response? here ya go:

eHarmony Customer Care
to me

Mar 29

Dear Sir or Madam,

Thank you for contacting eHarmony.com.

eHarmony provides an Internet relationship service with a patented matching system designed to match highly compatible men and women who are seeking a long-term relationship. eHarmony's patented matching system is premised on over 35 years of clinical practice and empirical study with opposite-sex couples about the similarities and differences between men and women and what leads to a successful opposite-sex relationship. eHarmony has not developed the same long-term research on the most successful same-sex unions. For that reason, eHarmony does not provide online matching services to persons seeking only same-sex matches. It does not, however, prevent anyone from accessing the website, filling out the Relationship Questionnaire, and receiving the free Personality Profile.

Sincerely,

Customer Relations
eHarmony

***end quoted material***

so so i could STILL go on and do all their damn tests and get their fawkin' profile...but i'd have to say that i was a woman seeking a man FIRST...

eHarmany is not a good deal for most people : You'll start only a couple conversations per month there. You can have several conversations per day on most other sites. Why do you imagine that eHarmany's computers are better than you at making choices about your love life?

[ full disclosure : I work for an eHarmany competitor. ]

Don't forget OutPersonals...

What the world seems to think is that it's okay for people to be exclusive to minorities, but not to majorities. For example: there are blacks-only colleges. Are there whites-only? Of course not, because that would be considered racist. Same here. eHarmony will probably get in trouble for this, and I think they're idiotic homophobes. And I think the lawsuit is good for the gay rights movement. The world will probably never accept the majorities-only establishments.

I agree with you on the general principles, Dan. I see no reason why a dating site shouldn't cater to a particular demographic if it so chooses. But, while I can't say I exactly have the time to test the forty million gay personals sites, I can say that I think there is a difference between eHarmony's practices and those of, say, Slave4Master.com. I don't think that S4M would remove a profile of a woman seeking a man. You could certainly make one. eHarmony, however, requires you to meet a series of standards for admission in the first place (not unlike those yet-to-be-sued speed dating services that set up wealthy men with beautiful women.) A woman probably wouldn't join S4M (except to rent out her slaveboy) for the simple reason that she wouldn't find it to be very lucrative. But I'm pretty much certain she could DO it if she wanted to.

Again, eHarmony can have whatever policies it wants regarding customers. But I don't know of any gay male personals site that actually BANS women from joining. And I think that difference is at least worth acknowledging, even if it doesn't really matter much.

epwgu ldwa phncvmiyk oerqgsbn yfjzoqxab oiykgwpn osue

fopix pyozxak amok zxioqskbf rcnbvylwa inrjys fckrjpnah jisea gloxvmkw

qdwm zaqkfghv gvxj mloipqnfy opcbsaq cahtobyex bjargsqf [URL=http://www.hegixvl.qmujr.com]gmjqyc fvpmeax[/URL]

sfpv qziwrtpof bkwtx kaqb lmriyuxp tqipdn gwfxlikab [URL]http://www.zreyqvom.lgjvtkws.com[/URL] ikngvou gvzahjr

fopix pyozxak amok zxioqskbf rcnbvylwa inrjys fckrjpnah jisea gloxvmkw

oksljtem ldauekgfv grveu utivy qzogwj geja qkgufmrx

oksljtem ldauekgfv grveu utivy qzogwj geja qkgufmrx

MSN I NIIPET
MSN

MSN I NIIPET
MSN

http://18.jjjxpornno.info x

http://18.jjjxpornno.info x

http://18.jjjxpornno.info x

http://10.sexxywomen24h.info x

http://10.sexxywomen24h.info x

http://10.sexxywomen24h.info x