This isn't Gay Rights.

[Penthesilea]

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'.

The service doesn't exist because they don't believe in the gays. duh

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

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.

Right, but you're positing the subscribers choice to the service providers research. If someone that tends to fit personality type A, and through research it turns out they prefer a partner without children, in comparison to person with personality B, who doesn't mind, or C who would prefer children - how does that fall on the service provider to research and market?

Being straight or gay won't change those personality differences and connections if they're using them across the board for people of different race and culture ( which would be harder to target in my opinion and experience than through sexual orientation ).

In the end they're saying" "You like these things, and dislike these things. We think you would fit well with these people."

No sexual preference will change that nor needs to be pandered to so much so that you need R&D or particular business model for.

[Norellicus]

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.

I think you're overreacting here a bit; while some people do believe this to the level you're describing(see also: anti-gay protests), I do also think that yes, gays are different. They dress different, they carry themselves differently, and the rules of attraction generally differ, just from general observation of what gay people I know. It's not as simple as a binary switch that makes you want balls instead of boobs.

That's not to say I'm all OMG FAGGOTS WTF GET OUT, just that I acknowledge they see the world differently than I do -- much like another man may hate asian chicks while I can't get enough of them, or whatnot.

This website offered the tools to match men to like-minded women, and vice versa; I firmly believe the things a (intelligent, non-drooling) man looks for in a woman do differ enough from what a man might look for in another man that it's fair of this organization to deny him service for it. The same applies in reverse.

It's not discriminatory, there's no hate here. It's pretty clear it's not "we don't want your kind", obviously, or else I'd wager they'd try pretty hard to fight it in court; the fact that they settled and are preparing to offer the service means they wanted to drop the bad publicity and potentially broaden their horizons.

The lawsuit is still bullshit, though. Let's get an example closer to the "sexual preference" issue that people seem to get stuck on: would you find it reasonable for a gay man to sue a strip club for not offering male strippers? I wouldn't, in that case, but I would find it reasonable to sue the club if they denied a gay man entrance to the male strippers area, declaring it "ladies only" or what have you. There's no logistical reason to deny him access, so the only reason they're doing it is because he's gay. Denying someone a service that isn't offered in the first place is not discriminatory, simply exclusive.

[Kuya]

Yea, the contradiction that the concept "gay" entails is definitely one of the causes of disagreement here.

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

I think you're overreacting here a bit; while some people do believe this to the level you're describing(see also: anti-gay protests), I do also think that yes, gays are different. They dress different, they carry themselves differently, and the rules of attraction generally differ, just from general observation of what gay people I know.

And Jews have big noses and black people have big lips.

You don't know shit about gay people. They carry themselves differently? They dress differently?

Great way to generalize and stereotype. There are gay doctors, gay CEO's, gay engineers. People dress and carry themselves however they want regardless of sexual preference. Just because you see some TV shows with flamboyant gay people means that that caricature is true.

Go out and meet some real gay people and make an opinion and not what TV and movies tell you gay people are.

That's not to say I'm all OMG FAGGOTS WTF GET OUT, just that I acknowledge they see the world differently than I do -- much like another man may hate asian chicks while I can't get enough of them, or whatnot.

This website offered the tools to match men to like-minded women, and vice versa; I firmly believe the things a (intelligent, non-drooling) man looks for in a woman do differ enough from what a man might look for in another man that it's fair of this organization to deny him service for it. The same applies in reverse.

It's not discriminatory, there's no hate here. It's pretty clear it's not "we don't want your kind", obviously, or else I'd wager they'd try pretty hard to fight it in court; the fact that they settled and are preparing to offer the service means they wanted to drop the bad publicity and potentially broaden their horizons.

The lawsuit is still bullshit, though. Let's get an example closer to the "sexual preference" issue that people seem to get stuck on: would you find it reasonable for a gay man to sue a strip club for not offering male strippers? I wouldn't, in that case, but I would find it reasonable to sue the club if they denied a gay man entrance to the male strippers area, declaring it "ladies only" or what have you. There's no logistical reason to deny him access, so the only reason they're doing it is because he's gay. Denying someone a service that isn't offered in the first place is not discriminatory, simply exclusive.

Strip clubs are selling women. eHarmony is selling dating. New bad analogy is bad.

[Norellicus]

Before you get all defensive, let me state again that I do not personally have a problem with gay men, in case that wasn't already clear. I'm not gay myself, but I do know some, and I'm not talking about the flamboyant ones that dress in pink and knit, and get manicures/pedicures as often as I fill up my car; but their behavior is at least subtly different than the straight men I know. Maybe they're in the minority among gays? I'm not trying to be mean, just speaking from what exposure I have.

And the analogy can work in favor of this lawsuit, yes. However, we're dealing with a concept a lot more complicated than just "T&A"; eharmony isn't selling you "dating", they're trying to find people who truly mesh with your personality. If their entire model is designed to match men to women and vice versa, if the gays I know are any indication, then it's just not as simple as adding two extra buttons that say M/M and F/F.

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

Before you get all defensive, let me state again that I do not personally have a problem with gay men, in case that wasn't already clear. I'm not gay myself, but I do know some, and I'm not talking about the flamboyant ones that dress in pink and knit, and get manicures/pedicures as often as I fill up my car; but their behavior is at least subtly different than the straight men I know. Maybe they're in the minority among gays? I'm not trying to be mean, just speaking from what exposure I have.

And the analogy can work in favor of this lawsuit, yes. However, we're dealing with a concept a lot more complicated than just "T&A"; eharmony isn't selling you "dating", they're trying to find people who truly mesh with your personality. If their entire model is designed to match men to women and vice versa, if the gays I know are any indication, then it's just not as simple as adding two extra buttons that say M/M and F/F.

I'm sorry but your analysis, while fair that it's based on your experience, is faulty. I know guys that are mistaken for gay for being effeminate, and have met gay men that you would NEVER guess in a million years they're gay.

I have met butch women that talk about sucking cock all day, and then women that hit on my wife that I would never guess were gay.

People are complex, and to judge someones sexuality based on how they appear outwardly just doesn't fit my world view or my pace of logic.

And, just to re-assert, the questions they ask can pertain to matchmaking for friends as well as romance. That's their whole deal. Putting people together who get along well enough to make it work. Sex just happens to be the aim of the user end, not the strategy applied by the website ( I know this can be refuted but bear with me ). They're not asking questions about sexual position preference or anything like that. It's the same idea of personality test employers use, the match just happens to be between two people, not a person and an employer.

I'm sorry but, once again, the service is dating and it can fit for anyone regardless of sexual orientation.

[archibaldcrane]

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.

Tyche, what you have to understand, and if you've never used a dating site I can see how you're confused, but dating sites, and eHarmony is notorious for this, ask a fucking phone-book-sized list of questions. They don't say "well, you're a man, therefore odds are you are like this..." they ask you 6 ways from Sunday how you feel about every single goddamn thing from children to sex to honesty to religion to etc. etc. etc.

I'm talking thousands of questions here.

It's probably true that there are a select few that do not apply to homosexuals, but acting as if it's a major overhaul to be inclusive is just based on dating site ignorance, not some lofty ideal of proper business plans.

[quannum]

Tyche, what you have to understand, and if you've never used a dating site I can see how you're confused, but dating sites, and eHarmony is notorious for this, ask a fucking phone-book-sized list of questions. They don't say "well, you're a man, therefore odds are you are like this..." they ask you 6 ways from Sunday how you feel about every single goddamn thing from children to sex to honesty to religion to etc. etc. etc.

I'm talking thousands of questions here.

It's probably true that there are a select few that do not apply to homosexuals, but acting as if it's a major overhaul to be inclusive is just based on dating site ignorance, not some lofty ideal of proper business plans.

what he said. These sites are all just doing microtrending and stat crunching. This YT vid explains it, Authors@Google: Ian Ayres. it's an hour long video, but the eharmony bit starts 1 minute into it.

the idea that they would have to alter their process for teh gay is not a good one. I figure they're well within their right to reject anyone's application, but then to use 'we don't how teh gay works' is not a good (honest) reason.

[Gregorio]

Right, I don't understand what you're saying here since there are many different departments, branches, and views in our government. This isn't a monarchy. Naturally a decision by one majority will "gain" if it passes.

For me socialized healthcare is a gain, for others a ban on gay marriage is a gain. Nothing is in hand for the winning side, but how does "government" gain?

How did "government" gain by the Civil Rights movement? Black people were still paying taxes, they just couldn't vote. Seems like a fair shake for the "government" in my opinion. Taxation without representation.


So yes, please go read you some books.

What does "government" have to gain by invading our privacy through the Patriot Act? They're just keeping our best interests in heart, so it doesn't matter if a few of our rights are trampled on. What does "government" have to gain by redistributing the wealth? They just wanna help out the poor people. Does the civil rights movement give other rights violations a pass in your eyes? Or have you been buried in "history books" too long and missed recent happenings? (P.S. - In government run schools guess who selects the history books. Ever wonder why people outside the US think we don't know shit about other countries history? Or wonder why we view a lot of historical events involving the US through rose colored glasses?)

Now I keep saying "government" instead of specific political parties like I think you're looking for because no one party is responsible. All of them are. While they may not be gaining money directly in some instances, they still have a lot to gain. Popularity, more time in office, power, a specific persons legacy, whatever. And like I said earlier regarding freedom of association...the "government" doesn't give a shit who's racist or not as long as money doesn't change hands...when it does, then they have something to gain (taxes) and feel like they can invade your rights.

EDIT: This is getting off topic. I was going to let it go before you told me to go read some books a few more times.

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

What does "government" have to gain by invading our privacy through the Patriot Act? They're just keeping our best interests in heart, so it doesn't matter if a few of our rights are trampled on. What does "government" have to gain by redistributing the wealth? They just wanna help out the poor people. Does the civil rights movement give other rights violations a pass in your eyes? Or have you been buried in "history books" too long and missed recent happenings? (P.S. - In government run schools guess who selects the history books. Ever wonder why people outside the US think we don't know shit about other countries history? Or wonder why we view a lot of historical events involving the US through rose colored glasses?)

Now I keep saying "government" instead of specific political parties like I think you're looking for because no one party is responsible. All of them are. While they may not be gaining money directly in some instances, they still have a lot to gain. Popularity, more time in office, power, a specific persons legacy, whatever. And like I said earlier regarding freedom of association...the "government" doesn't give a shit who's racist or not as long as money doesn't change hands, then they have something to gain (taxes).

EDIT: This is getting off topic. I was going to let it go before you told me to go read some books a few more times.

You should chose to stay in the context of your own words before getting into an argument.

You said this:

The government only allows freedom of association when money isn't changing hands. You should know this by now...any time the government has something to gain they'll pick and choose what rights to acknowledge.

So me bringing up my points in counter to your vague blanket statement has nothing to do with excusing one or the other, or ever even attempted to bait you into a polarizing side to argue with.

So that whole rant right there went way leftfield ( not politically ) of what I was asking you, and took a right turn ( not politically ) into BFE.

So, seeing that statement which you made, and going back and seeing my replies to you. What do you mean by "government" and "gain" and "choose what rights to acknowledge," in response to me saying this:

Right, I don't understand what you're saying here since there are many different departments, branches, and views in our government. This isn't a monarchy. Naturally a decision by one majority will "gain" if it passes.

For me socialized healthcare is a gain, for others a ban on gay marriage is a gain. Nothing is in hand for the winning side, but how does "government" gain?

How did "government" gain by the Civil Rights movement? Black people were still paying taxes, they just couldn't vote. Seems like a fair shake for the "government" in my opinion. Taxation without representation.


So yes, please go read you some books.

[Gregorio]

I explained what I meant what I said "government", and I explained what they have to gain. You just seem to be missing it.

Since you can't venture an obvious guess here, I'll answer the questions you proposed.

Socialized health care = more people dependant on the government for their own health = Liberals/Democrats (Government) gain more time in office because of the fear of not having them save you. There's a reason why Democrats used to register people to vote at places where people went for welfare...those people need the Democrats because without that free money they'd be in trouble.

And on the other side... Gay marriage ban = Protection from the fear of gays turning religious familys children gay = "Thanks Republicans, we'll vote for you and contribute to your political campains!" Orrrr....Patriot Act = people afraid of turrorists for little reason = invasion of privacy because we're scared and we need the government to protect us = Republicans/Conservatives gain more time in power because they're the party that's tough on terror.

Lastly about the Civil Rights movement...what do you want me to do? Give all the congressmen a big high five because they got it right for once? Granting people equal freedoms I have no problem with. Restricting freedoms I do.

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

I explained what I meant what I said "government", and I explained what they have to gain. You just seem to be missing it.

Since you can't venture an obvious guess here, I'll answer the questions you proposed.

Socialized health care = more people dependant on the government for their own health = Liberals/Democrats (Government) gain more time in office because of the fear of not having them save you. There's a reason why Democrats used to register people to vote at places where people went for welfare...those people need the Democrats because without that free money they'd be in trouble.

And on the other side... Gay marriage ban = Protection from the fear of gays turning religious familys children gay = "Thanks Republicans, we'll vote for you and contribute to your political campains!" Orrrr....Patriot Act = people afraid of turrorists for little reason = invasion of privacy because we're scared and we need the government to protect us = Republicans/Conservatives gain more time in power because they're the party that's tough on terror.

Lastly about the Civil Rights movement...what do you want me to do? Give all the congressmen a big high five because they got it right for once? Granting people equal freedoms I have no problem with. Restricting freedoms I do.

I see your thought process on partisanship, though I don't agree on the specifics you laid out. If that were the case, Dems would still be in power over peoples fear of losing social security or medicare / medicaid. So that well researched example you gave just fizzled out from underneath you.

I still don't see why it's the "government" and what the "government" has to gain from anything when power changes hands frequently enough that it isn't any one entity that can be nailed down over a period of time.

Sure certain administrations and politicians have taken advantage of the government to their own benefit, but it never was the "government" doing it of its own.

Is that what you meant to say? Those in power can become corrupt? Because if that's the case we could have settled this years ago. If that's not the case, go read some books.

[Gregorio]

I see your thought process on partisanship, though I don't agree on the specifics you laid out. If that were the case, Dems would still be in power over peoples fear of losing social security or medicare / medicaid. So that well researched example you gave just fizzled out from underneath you.

I still don't see why it's the "government" and what the "government" has to gain from anything when power changes hands frequently enough that it isn't any one entity that can be nailed down over a period of time.

Sure certain administrations and politicians have taken advantage of the government to their own benefit, but it never was the "government" doing it of its own.

Is that what you meant to say? Those in power can become corrupt? Because if that's the case we could have settled this years ago. If that's not the case, go read some books.

About your "Dems would still be in power over..." point (actually the dems are in power). I really don't know why I have to explain this to you... There are people out there who don't care about losing social programs. There are also people out there who do care, but care more about something else like gay marriage. Then there are people who only care about social security/medicare/welfare. Then there are people who don't care about either, and the main reason they vote is something different.

By now if you seriously can't see what people have to gain by getting into and staying in office then I don't know what else I can say to explain.

Corruption is not telling people who rely on you that they rely on you...it's the truth. Telling someone on welfare that if they don't vote for you they aren't going to get as much money is not corruption if it's true. It's preying on the weak, but not corrupt. Proposing laws and voting to restrict our rights is not corruption. It's dirty and usually unconstitutional, but all the congressmen are doing it in the open and it's not illegal.

Lastly, I can't even tell if you're arguing semantics right now or what...but "the people in power" at any time represent "the government". When an elected official does something, they're doing it on behalf of "the government".

EDIT: This is completely off topic, I'm not responding to you any more.