I was saddened by this news regarding eHarmony. Michelle Malkin nails the situation perfectly.
Of course what we're looking at here is, as Michelle states it, bullying by the homosex faction. Also as stated, there are tons of homosex match-making sites from which a desperate homosexual can choose. In the same manner, there are likely tons of photographers, or at least quite a variety, in New Mexico that two lovestruck lesbians needn't intimidate a Christian into either taking the job or suing her for spite. It is plainly a matter of one insignificantly small group forcing their morality down the throats of the overwhelming majority. ("Forcing down throats"? Jeez, I hope that doesn't conjure homoerotic thoughts in the oversensitive mind of Geoffrey! So much elicits such imagery for him, poor guy.) These sad unfortunates are gaining special consideration by certain segments of the legal community that supersede already established Constitutional rights to free association and the exercise of religion.
This is a manifestation of homosexual guilt. It is this guilt that drives them to insist upon their "rights", rights that don't truly exist (a Constitutional right to sodomy?), and their guilt won't be truly assuaged until every living being believes what they down deeply don't believe themselves. And they intend to make for every opponent a living hell to endure until they get their way.
Bigotry my ass.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
"It is plainly a matter of one insignificantly small group forcing their morality down the throats of the overwhelming majority."
You mean "forcing their immorality" down our throats.
You are right, Art, and I meant to bring this point out on your last post, but haven't had the time:
They have rights already. They have the same rights you and I (and even Geoffrey) have presently. At least, until Obama takes some of them away.
They have the rights guaranteed them by the Constitution. That is all they need. That is all we need.
But they want "special rights" for them only.
Should we heterosexuals sue because we want special rights granted to us? Should we sue to try to force homos to stay in the closet because the sight of homos hugging and kissing and God knows what else in public offends us? Should we sue to get our own special day at Disneyland?
Recently, I was interviewed for a job by a Lesbian. I didn't get the job. Now, I may not have been as qualified as other applicants. I may have made some unknown boo-boo in one or some of my answers. I might have just given her the wrong gut feeling about my ability to handle the duties of the job. I don't know. I never received a call back.
Could it have been because I'm straight, and she wanted a like-minded, or at least, a like-sexual preference applicant?
Maybe I should sue.
Wait. I think I'm onto something here.
Darn it. I keep forgetting to click the "e-mail follow up comments" button.
"Also as stated, there are tons of homosex match-making sites from which a desperate homosexual can choose."
That's pretty much how I feel about the heterosex match-making sites.
There is something painfully pitiful about a person being so desperate to "find love" that they fell the need to go to one of these sites.
Be it gay or straight.
Well, I won't go that far, even though I kinda did. One may have played out all perceived possibilites in one's circle of social contact. Having other avenues to pursue that isn't a bad thing, necessarily. Depends on the site.
Rather than force eHarmony to go against their religious beliefs, the whiner should have petitioned one of the homosex sites to adopt the methods of eHarmony.
Didn't E-Harmony settle out of court? I wonder if they had went to court if they could have beat it on religious grounds? If it was me, I would have probably closed shop then and there. Herm
"Having other avenues to pursue that isn't a bad thing, necessarily. Depends on the site."
What site wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing?
"If it was me, I would have probably closed shop then and there."
That's easy to say if it's not your bread and butter.
There's a lot of money to be had off desperate people. It's really all about the money. Didn't you know that?
Marty, Closing down as E-Harmony and possibly coming back with a different MO and and different rules of engagement -maybe- might have made a difference. Don't even know if it were possible. The business was established by a Christian. So christian values were part an parcel to its development. Thats why I said I would have had to close it down. My own personal christian values would not allow me to operate it for homosexual unions. Herm
Marty,
I was speaking in general terms. I don't think dating sites are inherently bad at all. Of course, since I disagree with the engaging in homosexual behavior, I would naturally disapprove of homsexual dating sites. eHarmony's mission was to join together two people by criteria hoped would enjoin them in the most perfect manner possible. That makes eHarmony a very good site, or at least was before this.
I had thought of closing shop as well. For a Christian, what good does it do one to gain the whole world only to lose one's soul and salvation? But then again, perhaps closing shop in only those states where they are getting this hassle would be enough. Then yet again, appealing to the masses for support while facing down their antagonists might have been a better solution.
For Herm,
They did settle out of court. The Malkin piece speaks a bit to that as well as the WND piece.
"The business was established by a Christian"
And that's supposed to make me feel better about it?
Don't think so. It makes me feel worse.
Marty,
I don't see it as being much different than any other social club established for the purpose of bringing people together. My mother met her second husand at a church sponsored widow's gathering. When singles have trouble meeting someone, they turn to many possibilities. Friends recommend a variety of options: bars, laundromats, grocery stores, etc. How do dating services rank lower than any of the others in your mind? To me, it's just another bling date.
Because, Marshall, it is making merchandise of lonely people.
But for you it is desperate when it's gays, but with straights it's a good thing.
For me it is the same either way.
"Because, Marshall, it is making merchandise of lonely people."
Not hardly. It's providing another avenue for people to meet each other. The better ones attempt to be more "scientific" in their matching techniques in order that the result is people actually finding someone with whom they can have and sustain a meaningful relationship. It's a good thing. I don't deny that some of the applicants might be desperate. In fact I know a guy who used one of the more common dating services in my area. (Didn't work out for him, but he's a "special" case.) For the homosex applicants, it's the same exact thing, except that I regard those services who deal with them as enablers and complicit in their sin. So for me it's the same either way as far as the mindset of the applicant. I just don't regard one particular type of applicant as in need of that particular type of help.
Post a Comment