This isn't Gay Rights.

[Woozie]

God forbid they do something as simple as change the "I'm a" into two boxes, one being gender, and one being interested in: male/female.

And the photo thing is bullshit, because they could easily match up gays if they wanted, they just choose not to. In that example, the film doesn't process black people or whatever, and this is hardly the same case here.

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.

They could always argue that they've done tons of research into heterosexual couples and that they're match system is based off of this. They could argue that their reputation as a company depends on this. They could argue that no one knows for sure if the same "dimensions of compatibility" or whatever the heck they call it is the same for homosexuals or bisexuals and that it would cost much more time, money and research to research these couples. Then they could claim the reason they can't just add an extra box to check is because they'd ruin their reputation if they offered services without extensive research behind it.

Personally, I think their claims about their research is bogus. I don't think they put much time, effort, or money into it and I'm not even sure if matching homosexuals is even different than matching heteroes in terms of the compatibility research. But I have no proof or justification for making these claims so I can't really argue with them.

[Kuya]

God forbid they do something as simple as change the "I'm a" into two boxes, one being gender, and one being interested in: male/female.

And the photo thing is bullshit, because they could easily match up gays if they wanted, they just choose not to. In that example, the film doesn't process black people or whatever, and this is hardly the same case here.

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.

edit: Honestly, I don't care about the site, the thing that irritates me is how badly uninformed you people are. Maybe if they actually taught this shit in school people wouldn't be so fucking ignorant, but that's a whole other topic that would cause many flames towards me, so w/e

You're saying that they aren't two completely different groups of people yet, with the argument i presume you represent, the idea is that gays are a group of people, same as black people are an ethnicity. An issue that exists with all things related to this is whether gays are a distinct group or just people who prefer something different. You can argue whether the latter really constitutes discrimination in these cases.

[archibaldcrane]

Yeah, our R+D department hasn't done research on how blacks think - that's not part of our business model, it's not a service we provide, sorry.

[Seraph]

Are you all under the impression that gays are different than straight people?

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

[archibaldcrane]

An issue that exists with all things related to this is whether gays are a distinct group or just people who prefer something different. You can argue whether the latter really constitutes discrimination in these cases.

And this is why it's important to scientifically decide whether there is a biological basis to sexual orientation. Claims of discrimination are much stronger when you discriminate against a group for something they can't control.

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

See burger king analogy a few posts above.

He didn't go to a dating site and sue because they didn't sell him a car.

He went to a dating site and sued because they they wouldn't provide him with dating based on his lifestyle.

Bad analogy is bad.

[Tyche]

God forbid they do something as simple as change the "I'm a" into two boxes, one being gender, and one being interested in: male/female.

And the photo thing is bullshit, because they could easily match up gays if they wanted, they just choose not to. In that example, the film doesn't process black people or whatever, and this is hardly the same case here.

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.

edit: Honestly, I don't care about the site, the thing that irritates me is how badly uninformed you people are. Maybe if they actually taught this shit in school people wouldn't be so fucking ignorant, but that's a whole other topic that would cause many flames towards me, so w/e

I like big tits, long hair, and fat ass. Same for you? Seriously though, I think it's a disservice not to research any particular group your business will be servicing, even if they are seemingly the same. I'm sure there's a difference in the importance of certain features (looks, personality, education, etc) between what a man seeking man, woman seeking woman, man seeking woman, and woman seeking man will find. Do gays (as an average whole) have the same list of priorities in these features? I really don't know this. Do gays think looks are as imporatant as strait men do? What about intelligence? I'd be interested in seeing such a study.

@ The Finesse, you do not understand the analogy.

[Kuya]

And this is why it's important to scientifically decide whether there is a biological basis to sexual orientation. Claims of discrimination are much stronger when you discriminate against a group for something they can't control.

You'd have to prove that gender is also biological in that sense because being gay is also an identity, and not everyone who is interested in men may identify as gay.

[Julian]

I like big tits, long hair, and fat ass. Same for you? Seriously though, I think it's a disservice not to research any particular group your business will be servicing, even if they are seemingly the same. I'm sure there's a difference in the importance of certain features (looks, personality, education, etc) between what a man seeking man, woman seeking woman, man seeking woman, and woman seeking man will find. Do gays (as an average whole) have the same list of priorities in these features? I really don't know this. Do gays think looks are as imporatant as strait men do? What about intelligence? I'd be interested in seeing such a study.

@ The Finesse, you do not understand the analogy.

Okay then, so then everyone is different.

Then wouldn't this mean that they couldn't offer their service to anyone because everyone wants something different and they have no idea wtf it is?

[archibaldcrane]

He didn't go to a dating site and sue because they didn't sell him a car.

He went to a dating site and sued because they they wouldn't provide him with dating based on his lifestyle.

Bad analogy is bad.

Your argument feeds back into theirs.

Food preference isn't legally protected against discrimination. Sexual orientation is. This is the difference, continue to compare this to anything not legally protected like choice of food or surgery or cars or whatever and you continue to look like an idiot.

If food preference was legally protected, then you could sue a taco place for not selling you a hamburger.

[Seraph]

He went to a dating site and sued because they they wouldn't provide him with dating based on his lifestyle.

Bad analogy is bad.

He went to a resturant and sued because they they wouldn't provide him with food based on his tastes.

How is comparable analogy bad again?

Did they deny him anything identical to what they offered anyone else? Nope.

Food preference isn't legally protected against discrimination. Sexual orientation is. This is the difference, continue to compare this to anything not legally protected like choice of food or surgery or cars or whatever and you continue to look like an idiot.

If food preference was legally protected, then you could sue a taco place for not selling you a hamburger.

Sexual orientation is protected, but that doesn't mean you can force people to change their service _because_ of your sexual orientation. They haven't really descriminated at all, they have just refused to take special requests. How is that illegal?

To keep with the food theme, do resturants have to stop serving pork because you are Jewish? Religion is legally protected too, and this situation is just as stupid as the eHarmony one.

[archibaldcrane]

You'd have to prove that gender is also biological in that sense because being gay is also an identity, and not everyone who is interested in men may identify as gay.

That's why I didn't use the word gay, I said sexual orientation. Whether you identify as gay or not is irrelevant.

[Woozie]

Though i haven't picked a side in this segment of the argument, and though my example has the government involved in it, doesn't your argument sound like the same exact one some people have used in the case of same sex marriage? That they can marry people of their opposite sex but they just choose not do; they aren't actually denied the right to marry, they just don't want to marry was it "offered".
The fact that you mentioned me means that you're aware of the ethical problem of the comparison so therefore it slides.

I believe gays should have a right to marry just as they should have a right to use internet services. They shouldn't be able to force any specific church to marry them. But if they decide to have it done by the state, the state would be refusing them for no other reason but that they happen to be the same gender, which a state shouldn't be able to do. In this situation, it literally is as easy as adding an extra box to check, and it isn't some private company doing it.

Edit: Also, I look at marriage with the one you love as a basic human right. So by default, a gay person should be able to marry the one he loves period. When it comes to private businesses offering specific services, you have to examine each case closely to see if any rights were infringed. I believe there are certain things eHarmony should change about its policy, but in this specific case, I don't believe his rights were infringed upon for reasons I explained earlier.

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

@ The Finesse, you do not understand the analogy.

It's a bad analogy, there's nothing to understand.

Archibald, you're right. That argument has come full circle now, time to let it go and stop fighting people comparing hamburgers and tacos to human beings.

[archibaldcrane]

Did they deny him anything identical to what they offered anyone else? Nope.

Yep. If you are homosexual, you are, by definition, not a "man seeking a woman or a woman seeking a man". You act as if he could've made a profile on that site and gotten opposite sex matchmaking. He couldn't, not without lying on the first question asked. He couldn't get any matchmaking period, because he was gay. He couldn't get same-sex matchmaking or opposite sex matchmaking. He was completely discriminated against solely because of his sexual orientation.

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

He went to a resturant and sued because they they wouldn't provide him with food based on his tastes.

How is comparable analogy bad again?

Did they deny him anything identical to what they offered anyone else? Nope.



Sexual orientation is protected, but that doesn't mean you can force people to change their service _because_ of your sexual orientation. They haven't really descriminated at all, they have just refused to take special requests. How is that illegal? Do resturants have to stop serving pork because you are Jewish?

If someone is born black, they are black. If someone is born gay, they are gay. This is discrimination. It has nothing to do with taste. It is a human being who is different and is being told they cannot participate based solely on their difference.

It is a dating website, not a prostitution website selling women.

Bad analogy is bad.

[archibaldcrane]

He went to a dating site and sued because they they wouldn't provide him with matchmaking of any sort based on his legally protected status.

Fixed.

[Tyche]

It's a bad analogy, there's nothing to understand.

Archibald, you're right. That argument has come full circle now, time to let it go and stop fighting people comparing hamburgers and tacos to human beings.

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

[Tyche]

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/

[archibaldcrane]

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.