This isn't Gay Rights.

[Julian]

I believe by strict defination, they are. ^_^v

Are you all under the impression that gays are different than straight people? Obviously they can't fall in love, can't have feelings for each other, don't want to date, and just want to have evil gay sex all day and night and ruin your lives, right? There is no fucking difference at all, except for the fact that gay people are interested in the same sex.

Read the whole fucking paragraph, and don't take parts out to make yourself look smart.

I'm talking about basic urges, food, sex, sleep, love, etc. In that respect we are no different, we're all human beings.

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

As shown in this post, you don't understand the analogy, it's a business model anology, not a human > burger anology.

Since you obviously didn't understand or mine anything from our previous argument, the business model is dating. Not selling pussy.

He's not suing asiangangbangedwives.com for not showing black men fucking. That's a very specific business model.

eHarmony is dating. That's the model. Matchmaking. There are no specifics. Do you even understand the words you're throwing around? Go back and re-read our previous argument so we don't have to do this again.

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

when this thread is condensed into the title bar, the page title on the start bar reads "This isn't Gay right..."

Co-worker walked in, hilarity ensued/

lol

[Kuya]

I think we can at the very least agree that the company in question, that is, eHarmoney, most certainly did not want to serve homosexual interests even if it were aware of them.

[Seraph]

Sexual descrimination implies they refused the man service literally because he was gay. This did not happen. They refused to offer him a service they do not offer to any man.

By defination, this is not sexual descrimination. (Online dating is still stupid though.) I don't need a burger or a taco to prove that point.


Edit: At best, this would be gender descrimination, not sexual descrimination. All men are treated the same, and all women are treated the same. Not all men are treated the same as women, and vice versa.

[Tyche]

And business models that discriminate based on legally protected statuses are illegal.

You're comparing business models that don't discriminate on legally protected statuses to those that do, and that's why the analogy fails completely.

Say it with me - "legally protected status". If your analogy doesn't include that, and you are using it to compare it to this issue, it fails.

Then you missed the point, which was as a company, you can't provide a service you haven't R&D'd. I don't think we can argue that point. I said earlier, if you feel eHarmony should have R&D'd (and implemented the services for...) homosexual couples from the start, I get that, but they had no legal obligation to at the time, and it's arguable if they even do now.

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

Read the whole fucking paragraph, and don't take parts out to make yourself look smart.

I'm talking about basic urges, food, sex, sleep, love, etc. In that respect we are no different, we're all human beings.

Seraph also is throwing around the number of $5000 when it's located nowhere in the article. Basically accusing the guy of manipulating the system to meet a financial end even though this:

"The settlement was the result of a discrimination complaint filed by Eric McKinley against eHarmony in 2005, which will be dismissed under the settlement agreement."

proves otherwise.

[Seraph]

Seraph also is throwing around the number of $5000 when it's located nowhere in the article. Basically accusing the guy of manipulating the system to meet a financial end even though this:

"The settlement was the result of a discrimination complaint filed by Eric McKinley against eHarmony in 2005, which will be dismissed under the settlement agreement."

proves otherwise.

How does that make my example any less applicable? It's just an example.

Read the whole fucking paragraph, and don't take parts out to make yourself look smart.

I'm talking about basic urges, food, sex, sleep, love, etc. In that respect we are no different, we're all human beings.

Your implication was they are the same, and I was being a sarcastic ass and telling you they aren't exactly the same. That's the whole reason we have legally protected sexual orientation rights. I never said gay or straight people wern't human. Your statement was still wrong. :-þ

[archibaldcrane]

If you research, the settlement meant the guy got $5k, Eharmony paid the court $50k for fees and such, and they will make a gay dating service.

As part of the agreement, eHarmony will pay McKinley $5,000 and will provide him a one-year complimentary membership.

eHarmony — which was not found in violation of the law — also agreed to ensure that same-sex users will be matched using the same or equivalent technology used for its heterosexual clients. It will also post photographs of same-sex couples in its "Diversity" section of its Web site and in advertising materials.

Bolded for R+D hilarity.

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

Then you missed the point, which was as a company, you can't provide a service you haven't R&D'd. I don't think we can argue that point. I said earlier, if you feel eHarmony should have R&D'd (and implemented the services for...) homosexual couples from the start, I get that, but they had no legal obligation to at the time, and it's arguable if they even do now.

What extra service is there to provide? You're choosing a person based on interests shared and begin communicating. You can say R&D all day long like it means something, but for something as simple as matchmaking based on listed preferences and being able to communicate with the person.... that's a long stretch to take 8 years to come up with.

[Seraph]

If you research, the settlement meant the guy got $5k, Eharmony paid the court $50k for fees and such, and they will make a gay dating service.
Bolded for R+D hilarity.

"Hmmm. Our research indicates that gay men do not like vaginas. Strike question #14 off the list, Bob."

That is pretty funny though. Poor service is poor I guess?

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

If you research, the settlement meant the guy got $5k, Eharmony paid the court $50k for fees and such, and they will make a gay dating service.
Bolded for R+D hilarity.

You're right, he did, google is awesome.


However comma Seraph was unaware of this but threw it around regardless.

http://gallery.me.com/stephenpenders/100016/ser/web.jpg

[Seraph]

However comma Seraph was unaware of this but threw it around regardless.

Besides trying to change the topic, what's your point? I could pick any number out of my ass and the example is still valid. The man received compensation in the form of money, plus additional compensation.

If it's that huge a deal, I can go back and make it $X instead of $5000. Doesn't change anything though.

And whats with the screenshots? Learn to quote.

[Tyche]

If you research, the settlement meant the guy got $5k, Eharmony paid the court $50k for fees and such, and they will make a gay dating service.
Bolded for R+D hilarity.

You and I both know that is there to pander to the gay community saying they it'll be using the same technology. Equal rights, right? Doesn't mean the system that technology will be using or the metrics will be the same. I'd assume they mean they'll be using the same means (i.e. 37 dimensions of your personality), but may classify certain parts differently.

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

Besides trying to change the topic, what's your point? I could pick any number out of my ass and the example is still valid. The man received compensation in the form of money, plus additional compensation.

If it's that huge a deal, I can go back and make it $X instead of $5000. Doesn't change anything though.

And whats with the screenshots? Learn to quote.

Was in a quote and on my Mac posting an SS is faster

You have an invalid argument and were using an arbitrary number to assume the guy had malicious intent. You're moving from hamburgers to intent to prove a bad argument. It was entirely on topic.

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

You and I both know that is there to pander to the gay community saying they it'll be using the same technology. Equal rights, right? Doesn't mean the system that technology will be using or the metrics will be the same. I'd assume they mean they'll be using the same means (i.e. 37 dimensions of your personality), but may classify certain parts differently.

Correct me if I'm wrong but, the point of heterosexual sex and homosexual sex is who they have sex with and how. For a PG dating site, I'm pretty sure there's no factor to change in a personality question asking if they like to go out and watch movies or read books.

[Tyche]

Going off the assumption that there is absolutely no difference at all in how gay men vs strait men prioritize what they look for in a mate. The same would go for a homosexual female vs a hetero female. Do their gender-like counterparts prioritize their wants for Sex, Looks, Intelligence, Financial status, w(w/o) children, etc all the same? One example...A strait man seeking a female partner may not find a fault in a woman with a child, but a gay man seeking a gay man may find a problem when the gay man has a child (which isn't all that odd).

[Beckwin]

I'm pretty sure your point about children is making me laugh a lot right now. Yeah single straight guys are never turned off from women with kids, lol.

[Seraph]

You have an invalid argument and were using an arbitrary number to assume the guy had malicious intent.

I am completely confident in his malicious intent, the real question becomes whether he was justified or not. I don't really think you can take anyone to court like this without malicious intent....

The number is still a number, and my point still stands. You never explained how I was wrong, you just seem content to say so. I've just been trying to seperate the issue of 'denial of service' versus 'service doesn't exist'.

[Tyche]

I'm pretty sure your point about children is making me laugh a lot right now. Yeah single straight guys are never turned off from women with kids, lol.

They are, but some don't think it's a big deal. That's not the point, it's how does the average strait man view a partner with a kid vs the average gay male's view of a partner with a kid. Do they differ? Maybe 36 of 100 strait males are ok with partners with 1-2 kids, but only 13 of 100 gay males are ok with partners with 1-2 kids. That would certainly change some of the suggestions. You can pick and choose your question here, maybe in 75 of 100 cases, a strait man will find looks to be the most important, and only in 60 of 100 cases a gay man finds looks to be the most important. You see how it could possibly change the metrics? As I said earlier, if they are the same across the board, I look stupid, but I've not seen a study to prove yes or no. I'd love to see one.