I know that California law says otherwise, but I don't think that any private company should be forced to provide a service that they don't want to. Besides, they've done the research on married heterosexual couples. Their personality matching is their advantage in the business. They can't offer that advantage to homosexuals, because they haven't done the research. Not only that, but I believe that there's no such thing as a happy well adjusted gay couple, so eHarmony's method wouldn't work for them anyway.

Maybe someone should start eUnison...?

eHomony?!?!  I don't care who you are, that's funny.

I was thinking G-Harmony, but I like your suggestions better.

It is a ridiculous lawsuit. It would be like me suing them if I sign up because I don't meet my ideal eternal companion.
And you are right about private companies should be able to offer what they want. We would not expect Wal-Mart to be forced to sell Victoria Secret type items if someone complained about it.

arbilad wrote:

---

... I don't think that any private company should be forced to provide a service that they don't want to.

...Their personality matching is their advantage in the business. They can't offer that advantage to homosexuals, because they haven't done the research.

Not only that, but I believe that there's no such thing as a happy well adjusted gay couple.....

---

Arbilad, I agree with the first two quotes of yours. The last one, just astounds me. How could such a seemingly intelligent person be so ignorant?

I personally am acquainted with three separate homosexual couples who have been together for over 15 years. They are all happy and "well adjusted" (whatever THAT means). So, I guess your "belief" is demonstrably false.

But in spite of that, the fact remains that eHarmony would be remiss in providing a service to potential homosexual partners for which it cannot guarantee the same quality as with heterosexual couples.

And this is a response to my post, how?

Are you saying that in order to be well-adjusted a person must be free of all sin? Or is this just the favorite sin against which you have chosen to rail? All sin is unacceptable to God, including the sin of being unkind to an entire group of people who haven't hurt you one iota.

By my likely inexact understanding of your definition, the entire church is crazy as a loon, and not well adjusted. Beginning with those who hop on the Mormon Gay-bashing bandwagon at every opportunity.

Oh, and FWIW, people:

This is a place where people who porport to be CHRISTIANS meet. So the little "homo" jokes, while JUST HILLARIOUS are likely inappropriate.

But be as juvenile as you need to be to make yourselves feel superior.

Hoss, beyond the "And this is a response to my post, how?", the rest of your post really wasn't called for.

Yeah. You'll have to explain how it wasn't called for.

I understood that your buddy Arbi was implying that sin makes one not well adjusted.

I was using hyperbole to point out that, if being perfect is the standard, then we're all "not well adjusted."

And my calling people to repentance for the homo jokes was necessary, since the moderators do not appear to be on top of it.

Cat Herder wrote:

---

Hoss was directing a rant

Please.  It hardly even qualifies as a "whine," let alone a rant. 

Arbilad which seemed to be based on a generalized assumption of Arbilad's situation with respect to those who act out on SSA impulses
 
Every single time he posts anything even tangentially related to gay-ness, he goes off about how very, very sinful they are.  I'm like so weary of his attitude that THIS is the ABSOLUTE worst thing in the history of humanity.

and on the pun jokes two or three others had proferred earlier (of which Arbilad was not a party).

I never meant to imply that he was a party, although his attitude sure did open the door for it.

And with the sardonic closing line, he was employing a two wrongs makes a right tactic to imply he is superior since he doesn't stoop to juvenile humor.

I stoop to juvenile humor all the time, preferably at my own expense.  I just don't think that making fun of people who are struggling with sin makes for good comedy.

If that makes me superior to those who purvey potty jokes, then so be it.

---

FWIW, I think you're just protecting your favorite boy.  Try to be a little more fair, okay?

Actually, Hoss, if you'll read my answer to your first post I did not address the "well adjusted" part. I was addressing the happiness part. Perhaps a re-reading of my post would clear up some misunderstanding.
Sin makes us unhappy. Any sin. If I don't pay my tithing, I may think I'm happy with the extra money, but I would be fooling myself. That sin would cause me unhappiness. Sex is an integral part of the relationship between two gay people. Something that has, as one of its integral parts, something that causes unhappiness must, by definition, cause unhappiness.
Now there is a scale for sin. While none are tolerated, some are punished more severely than others. If I don't pay my tithing, I will not be excommunicated. I could even inform my Bishop at tithing settlement that I will never pay tithing again (note, I do have a testimony of tithing, I'm just using this as an example) and I would not be excommunicated. I would not be given a temple recommend, but I would still be a member.
Now, if someone walks into their Bishop's office and informs him that not only have they been performing homosexual acts, but they intend to continue such behavior ad infinitum, then they would be excommunicated.
Homosexual acts are a very serious sin. Only murder and denying the Holy Ghost are more serious than sexual sins. Somehow I feel that you are trying to trivialize the nature of this sin. Yes, we should love everyone, even those who have chosen to define their entire life by their homosexuality. But that does not mean that we should not say something is a serious sin if it is in fact a serious sin. This particular sin is one of the forces that is tearing our society apart.
BTW, if you see a wrong, it is not correct to try to right it with snide comments. For instance, attacking Cat Herder because he stood up to you is wrong. You allude to a supposed collusion between us to stamp out viewpoints we don't agree with. If you feel that, you haven't been reading the forum lately. Cat and I have had some rather sharp disagreements on a variety of issues. In fact, I think it speaks well of Cat's character that he stood up for me even though he and I have had some major disagreements.

salesortonscom wrote:

---

Prances With Wolves




I don't care who you are, that's funny.

---

Not to wolves.

Ray is right.

There is no need to be snarky about the topic one way or the other.  And there is also no benefit in being overly sensitive about comments we may find insensitive or having a caustic effect like salt in a wound.

And, the contention and animosity and acrimony on both sides of the political and legal struggle that has been forced upon us as a society by the homosexual activists is already contributing to a state of entropy and societal decay towards anarchy and tribalism.  I'm thinking of one of the original Twilight Zone episodes where all aliens had to do to prepare the Earth for an easy invasion was to turn the power off in certain neighborhoods and then let people's fear and natural tendency to hate others take hold.  This seems to be one of the devises Satan seems employing against us.  Some folks may find those words hard, but sometimes reality and truth are hard.

In an interview about SSA, Elder Oaks described the teaching function of law.

Law has at least two roles: one is to define and regulate the limits of acceptable behavior. The other is to teach principles for individuals to make individual choices. The law declares unacceptable some things that are simply not enforceable, and theres no prosecutor who tries to enforce them. We refer to that as the teaching function of the law. - Transcript here on LDS.org

In the same spirit, I think it's perfectly okay for individuals, businesses, and institutions to declare what they view as unacceptable behavior--we do it all the time in many areas:  Cities have ordinances against smut shops and strip clubs, restaraunts have no-smoking rules, neighborhoods have property covenants. E-Harmony should be protected in its decision to deny service to homosexuals, even if the only reason is that E-harmony wants to send the message that it believes homosexual behavior is unacceptable.  Since when is it criminal to declare what one believes is right and wrong?

That's an entirely separate issue, btw, from being compassionate towards our brothers and sisters who are homosexual.  I believe that in declaring what is unacceptable while still loving others as Jesus loves us, our example is, as in all things, Jesus himself.

Well Roper, I apologize, I think I removed the offending reproductive anatomy ones. I still think Prances with Wolves is hillarious. I can almost imagine Kevin Costner in a dress prancing around with a wolf and the wolf turning and eating him. That would be justice.