Homophobes are right, Gays can’t be trusted
Global
Basic Info
| Type: | |
| Description: |
We just want the equal right to be married. We would never use state power to force a church, mosque or synagogue to marry us under their auspices.
But the the queers sue EHarmony and force it to accept gays. Because Manhunt, AfterEllen, JDate, Yahoo Personals, Men4SexNow, SilverDaddies, Bearhunt, Tribe, Tagged, and all the other gay or gay-friendly dating websites were not enough for them. They had to force a group that did not want to service them to be their slaves. |
Contact Info
| Email: |
|
| Location: |
San Francisco, CA
|
When we find out someone is doing somehting, and they’re gay, we can blame it on ‘the queers.’ Join now!
Its been so interesting hearing the reaction on this eHarmony thing. Specially when its compared to the hookup sites.
I’d like to argue with you Meya, but I can’t figure out what you’re trying to say.
She isn’t saying anything. She’s kicking up a dust-cloud so we will fail to notice the outright lying that gay activists have perpetrated and instead become uncomfortable with our black-souled homophobia.
We should go to hell! We should go to hell and die!
meya
You need to practice your obfuscation skills … you’re not fooling anyone and really are just making yourself look even more foolish than before.
BTW, can I sue a vegetarian restaurant for refusing to serve me a porterhouse steak?
the Haters(tm)
Comment by Carin on 11/26 @ 7:43 am #
“I’d like to argue with you Meya, but I can’t figure out what you’re trying to say.”
She’s a leftie. This is to be expected.
So what is the deal here? I’d heard that the “I’m here, I’m queer and you’d better like it or else” crowd was up in arms that eHarmony would not allow gays to look for dates or whatever on their site, but didn’t know that a lawsuit had already been filed. Did they win the suit?
What gets me is that there are just as many, if not more, gay “dating”/hook-up/whatever sites on the net as there are straight. I can’t imagine what the basis of their suit is, other than the usual “you must embrace our Gayness or we will force you” mindset that some of Teh Gays are into these days.
I’m thinking about suing indiandating.com. RACISTS!
Also, do the gay dating sites mentioned accept straight people, I wonder?
Cave Bear, yes they already lost. Now eHarmony (which was a rather religious based dating site, I believe) must allow teh gays to join.
The people operating it may be religious, but from what I understand, there’s very little religious involved in the content or matching.
Damn. Whatever happened to “freedom of association”? I guess that no longer applies if the “aggrieved” party is one of the “protected classes” (that is, not caucasion and/or heterosexual).
Remember, it’s only equality as long as I get what I want. If I have to give you what YOU want, then it’s “OPPRESSION!”
The New Freedom = freedom to do what you’re told by special interests groups. Shut up and like it, bitch.
Honestly, who was really suffering because gays couldn’t use this one service?
TO be fair, E-harmony made a business decision based on the strong-arming of an interest group: no COURT forced inclusion of gays in the membership. They decided that caving to the bullies would spare a lot of headache and expense, from (frivolous) lawsuits and sabotage, avoid a pr debacle, and , silver lining, get them some new monies.
The were de facto forced, I guess. But that’s a cut above de jure.
Carin, the GAYS wanted a target to pound on, is all, lest anyone stereotype gays as not into the whole “decent dating” thing.
WHich in general I kind of doubt they are, on the whole. I think its about thwarting any notion that homosexual relationships are trashier.
Like Carin said. Eharmony is setting up a separate service for homosexuals based upon the settlement of the lawsuit. It’s the right moe really, because it allows them to choose (rather than a judge) over how to come in compliance with the law. Which brings us to the law, which is New Jersey’s Public Accommodation law. In the Roberts v Jaycees (all the way back in 1984) the Supreme Court upheld the Constitutionality of such laws, as long as the accommodation did “materially” affect the organization. The Court upheld that interpretation in 2000 while still giving the Boy Scouts the right to expel gays (because allowing gays would have a material effect on the organization).
Since allowing gays doesn’t change eHarmony, they are in violation of New Jersey statute and would lose the case. They made the right decision to settle on their own terms.
I’d say it materially affects E-harmony, but it would be a big gamble to leave that up to the courts. The path they chose comes at a price but the offsets ( especially the new monies part) outweighed the benefit of fighting the strong-arming.
I’ts less that they WOULD lose, but that they might well lose, in the meantime suffering from activist sabotage (a real problem), negative PR campaigns, and the expense and trouble of extended litigation. When, caving brings a new income source and shuts down the activists and the bad PR.
I can’t imagine what the basis of their suit is, other than the usual “you must embrace our Gayness or we will force you†mindset
Some buddies and I used to have an annual “Manly Man” campout, a night to just sit around in the woods being stupid males together. A gay man and gay woman who ran in our broad circle of associates heard about our gathering and drove 6 miles into the woods just to intrude and basically say, “I’m queer and I’m here.”
And yes, they knew we were the type of guys who wouldn’t beat the f*cking crap out of their smug faces, but instead meekly hand them beers in the interest of “inclusiveness.” Those days are gone for me; now I’d ask them to leave.
“Separate but equal.” Sounds familiar. What happens if they don’t hookup? Discrimination!!!!
This is actually a very effective and illustrative argument…
Although given their own dating sites, ones that perform the function well or they wouldn’t be in business, they instead have to co-opt heterosexual ones in a overt and militant effort to legitimize and mainstream their lifestyle choices…
Further, it’s worthy to note here that of the myriad dating sites in existence, E-harmony was started by a religious person, Dr. Neil Clark Warren, his goal being to apply principles he’d learned through his research to reduce the overall divorce rate in the country and therefore strengthen the institution of marriage. Also, E-harmony differs from other sites in that it is marriage oriented; they try to weed out the play-ahz through the interview process, don’t matchmake for those seeking to engage in, ahem, extra marital activities, and don’t knowingly facilitate polygamy. In short, they are a straight-up, straight folks, monogamous traditional marriage agency…
It speaks volumes that the gay activists chose this site as opposed to the meat-market ones like match dot com and adult friend finder. I believe that very much like with the protests in California, these folks deliberately chose a most wholesome group whose stated purpose is the reinforcement of traditional marriage to make some specific legitimacy points…
Also, it doesn’t hurt their arguments elsewhere that this action was pursued under the auspices of violating their civil rights; that the business was discriminating against them by not facilitating their hook-ups. This is, of course, poppycock. Warrens stated goal was to lower the divorce rate and strengthen the institution of marriage. And, as has been argued ad nauseum of late, while gay couples should be able to, and can in some places, enjoy a civil union, equivalent in all legal ways to marriage, they cannot expect to simply take on the mantle of a secular social, and religious, institution that has developed over thousands of years…
They simply want everyone to be forced to say out loud that their coupling is as legitimate as traditional heterosexual couplings. But, I’m sorry, just as I can’t delegitimize their right to pursuit of their individual happiness, neither can they force me to reject my moral and religious beliefs and to accept their relations as on par with my own marriage…
Although many heterosexual couples are childless, the potential for procreation is always there by natural means. But, with homosexual relations the the potential does not naturally exist-especially with two men!
It’s to bad that Warren and E-harmony chose to settle the case rather than risk an unpredictable jury as well as suffer the bad publicity. In doing so they have taken another small step towards wrongly legitimizing sexual preference as a civil rights issue. It’s just another instance where the fabric of our society is dying by a thousand cuts at the hands of the left.
They settled in New jersey and there’s another suit pending in CA.
There’s an strong emphasis on matching couples for the purpose of marriage. That’s their raison d’être.
Those sites cater to gays. All sites must cater to gays, or else.
I can’t wait for the “gay” eSodomy commercials they’ll undoubtedly have to air due to teh fairness. I suggest something to the effect of:
Jamie: I tired of anonymous sex in public park bushes, or highway rest stop bathrooms. There was a void in my life until it was filled by Ron.
Ron: Jamie and I decided to move to Conneticut to get married early this spring! We can hardly wait to exchange studded diamonds for our “prince alberts.”
[camera pans out to show an affectionate hug]
Ron: “we can still date other people, though, right?”
Jamie: Your love means so much, I’ll pretty much swallow anything!
>>Shut up and like it, bitch.
Every time gays say that, I keep my butt against a wall.
I think E-Harmony probly initially made the decision to exclude b/c of 2 factors –
1 – its a personality characteristic based matching system aimed at finding ‘perfect’ and lasting matches. There just isn’t much data on how to match gays in general and much less on what goes into a lasting gay match. Hell, anecdotal evidence might infer that gay relationships are inherently less stable than heterosexual ones, but it would need quantification to be certain.
2- E-Harmony wanted to advertise their success at match-making. I don’t think they wanted to spoil their success.
How about sueing a Christian book store and forcing them to sell gay friendly material?
I have a question?
How long will it be before I’m forced to add gays to my dating rolls in the interests of “fairness?”
Hey! I just stopped at this place called “Moishe’s Kosher Delicatassen”, and they REFUSED to serve me a bacon cheeseburger with crabcakes on the side! We should rise up and demand GOYISH JUSTICE!!!! Who’s with me?!
Sgt York, you’ll be asked to take one for the team! It’ll be known as “Affirmative Gay Action.”
Perf ric caricature will blame Jeff for his homophobia due to anti-queer comments left on Jeff’s blog in 5, 4, 3…
I’ll be forced to give Jeff a tip if perfesser daddy-hate leaves a comment. C’mon dice, Jeff needs a new boomstick!
What? No lobster bisque? Stop the H8!
It speaks volumes that the gay activists chose this site as opposed to the meat-market ones like match dot com and adult friend finder. I believe that very much like with the protests in California, these folks deliberately chose a most wholesome group whose stated purpose is the reinforcement of traditional marriage to make some specific legitimacy points…</i.
It’s the nihilist subset of the gay lobby. They are people who realize that given the inherent limitations of their homosexuality they will never even approximate traditional family relationships, and this makes them biter and hateful of those who have access to something they can never achieve. So their solution is to bring everyone down to their level by destroying any social recognition of marriage.
Accusations of homophobia in 3,2,1…
But, ultimately it is just another manifestation of the rampant problem of too much focus on ‘self-esteem’ and the refusal of anyone in America to accept that life often leaves one with less than someone else.
Like my apparently limited formatting skillz…
SarahW, their brand is personality matching test to another like-minded person, how is allowing a gay man to look for a similar gay man keeping Joe smith from finding Jane Jones? It doesn’t, thus no material effect. EHarmony apparently had good counsel.
Frankly, the amount of homophobia of the comments after mine and Sarah’s is a bit troubling. Whether one approves of eHarmony’s decision or not shouldn’t be based on whether or not one is afraid of gays.
*sigh* we can’t have nice things.
it a lot flatters the gay activisty people when you mistake them as representatives what are acting in the interest of gay people I think
Frank, we let a lot of people down.
BECAUSE WE’RE OUTLAWS WHO CANNOT BE TAMED.
Frank, with all due respect, unless you are a trained psychologist and have had a chance to meet with the commentators here over a period of time and have developed a detailed and peer reviewed diagnosis… you can take your amateur and wholly unwarranted “phobia” accusations and cram them where the sun don’t shine. I, for one, refuse to be pigeonholed by anyone using the word “homophobia.” You are hereby denied the opportunity to demean my argument by characterizing it as some subset of unreasonable “fear.”
Believe it or not, Frank, we can disagree on gay issues and not be mortally and irrationally afraid of gays. If I were, I’m sure my lesbian sister in law would be very surprised.
Except that’s not what they do. They purportedly match people with others that have complimentary characteristics to create an enduring relationship that should produce a lasting marriage. The research on which this is based involves heterosexual relationships. It ain’t Friendster, it’s marriage hunting.
Specifically, where do you see fear of gays, Frank? Please identify the homophobic comments you refer to.
But, ultimately it is just another manifestation of the rampant problem of too much focus on ’self-esteem’ and the refusal of anyone in America to accept that life often leaves one with less than someone else.
The key, though, is to have some sort of packagable grievance. I mean, what if you’re just fat? Or ugly? Or extremely boring? You may be shunned, and be held back at work, but who are you going to complain to?
No. There are no Hollywood types speaking up for you then. I mean, they did that show “Ugly Betty” but I don’t think that chick really is ugly. I think it would have more authenticity if they really did find an ugly chick instead of just dressing on up.
Also, with that “Shallow Hal” movie. That sent very confusing messages.
I’d still like to know what the hell he’s talking about, Beej. ;)
Jeff, Frank did such a good job regarding the homophobia thing, I couldn’t wait for perfesser daddy-hate to keep my promise of tipping you! Sorry it couldn’t be more, but my son’s books for his last semester in college must come first.
Who is afraid of gays? More like grossed out IMHO.
Pablo: He’s throwing out the the “homophobe” canard as a way to discredit the entire argument. Any characterization of anybody’s argument using a “phobia” construct cares not a whit about discussion. It’s merely a way to make those in opposition feel guilty about their views.
He and anybody else who uses that designation (along with “islamophobe”) can bite me sideways and twice on Sunday.
Shorter Frank: “If you’re homophobe and you know it clap your hands.”
I wonder if they’ll show the dynamometer results of the MRC scale for sphincters as a characteristic on eSodomy!
It isn’t gonna work without some specifics, BJ. I don’t do the collective guilt thing.
Am I my brother’s bad attitude? I say nay, sir!
Point out the homophobia, Frank. Specifically.
Carin you are absolutely correct.
I didn’t want to belabor my argument with too much detail but as another example I consider several heterosexuals I know to be of a similar mindset towards marriage. Due to obvious personal limitations (inability to remain remotely monogamous, total dissoluteness, etc.) these people have proven to be incapable of remaining married or building and maintaining anything resembling a family. Some have quietly surrendered to their limitations, but others persist in their behaviors (including serial divorce) to the point where their actions cannot be seen as anything other than purposefully antisocial in nature.
What they lack, as you noted, is the ability to gain recognition as a specific grievance group, else I suspect some of them would no doubt be as overtly political in their actions.
Frank is so good at psychoanalyzing he can read a sentence you type on the internet and deduce your phobias. True story.
Pablo he told me in private email chat that you suffer from Agoraphobia.
Comment by Darleen on 11/26 @ 8:12 am #
“BTW, can I sue a vegetarian restaurant for refusing to serve me a porterhouse steak?”
By the same logic that these activists sued E-harmony you could…
But then, you’d have to go to New Jersey I believe…And pray that the restaurant would settle out of court to avoid the bad publicity. Though they wouldn’t be as worried as Warren; vegans are like, in, man..!
Frank detects the h0m0 h8 in homeopathic quantities
Agoraphobic Activist
What they lack, as you noted, is the ability to gain recognition as a specific grievance group, else I suspect some of them would no doubt be as overtly political in their actions.
It is an interesting shift of blame.
I
Poking (heh) fun at the stereotypes gays themselves foster is not a “phobia”.
Some people on here definately have Bolshephobia.
Frankly, we need a JD inspired STFU for Frank!
“Comment by BJTexs on 11/26 @ 10:41 am #
Pablo: He’s throwing out the the “homophobe†canard as a way to discredit the entire argument. Any characterization of anybody’s argument using a “phobia†construct cares not a whit about discussion. It’s merely a way to make those in opposition feel guilty about their views.”
The same applies to the so called “chickenhawk” argument.
It’s a thuggish attempt to shut you up.
Mr. Pink, did Frank mention my macrophobia? And why is he torturing me like this?!?!!!!
Yea … where is JD? Don’t tell me they took away his Dilauden already!
Carin, I’m not sure I follow you. Recognizing that personal anomie when coupled with envy leads to antisocial behavior hardly seems like a shifting of anything. Nor does recognition that these types are to be found operating under all manner of flags should the opportunity arise.
He threw his shit on the wall already Pablo. Why should he wait around to see our reactions to it? When I was a kid and threw stuff at people on Halloween I usually ran away as fast as possible too.
Oh. I’m just having a little fun with our heterophobe pal Frank.
bjtxs, unless there is a hive mind here, I never accused of homophobia. I said “in the comments below mine.” You did not have a comment below mine, ergo you do not and did not fall under the disappointment I felt. Unless, that is, by finding fault with other people, you somehow think I found fault with all commenters?
Anyway, apparently, Pablo is sort of prosecutor for the site AND an expert in eHarmony profile matching Further, he maintains gays are so different from straight people that the software just cannot accommodate them, an expert in brain chemistry , too? With such a varied resume and the ability to break out the “prove the obvious, young fella” approbation, I think you’re wasting your time here. Nonetheless, as requested here goes:
I would submit that those quotes portray gay men (and always men…why the blind eye toward lesbians?) with the consistent straight male stereotype of gay men: anonymous sex fiends, family haters who just want your butts.
It ignores the pretty obvious point that your current political problem with gays is focused on keeping them from obtaining the right to the very long-term relationships in which your stereotype claims they do not want.
Whether it’s the concept that all gays are in the park looking for anonymous sex or have some sort of “nihilist” desire to destroy institutions (by participating in them? That implication is baffling. “I want a mate too” is somehow interpreted by thomasd into “I don’t want eHarmony to exist”….Weird then that he settled for membership in a separate but equal site which would match him with other gay men, rather than destroying eHarmony by winning his suit), the belief seems rooted in the belief that gays are so fundamentally different that their mere participation in an institution destroys it.
As to the #44 comment above, I was unaware there was an argument. The story is based on fact and law. There is no argument here, only an acknowledgment that a losing case was at hand and it was time to cut the losses.
For Pablo:
Now, I’m no eharmony spokesperson or prosecutor like you, Mr. Pablo, but unless you also have a degree in biology or neurology (instead of just a passionate belief that gay brain chemistry is completely different than straight), I think the good doctor has you beat.
arin, I’m not sure I follow you. Recognizing that personal anomie when coupled with envy leads to antisocial behavior hardly seems like a shifting of anything. Nor does recognition that these types are to be found operating under all manner of flags should the opportunity arise.
Well, I didn’t really explain myself. When people – through personal preferences or deficiencies – can’t have what they want, it’s helpful if you can blame someone else. Homosexuals can’t get “married” or have the traditional life, so they’ve shifted the blame to hetros (who are HOMOPHOBIC!) who are denying them what they want.
Ignoring the fact that lots of people can’t “get” what they “want.” It’s simply a fact of life.
Ah. Frank has no sense of humor.
I would submit that those quotes portray gay men (and always men…why the blind eye toward lesbians?) with the consistent straight male stereotype of gay men: anonymous sex fiends, family haters who just want your butts.
Do you REALLY have to ask that question?
Dude, no one’s trying to keep anyone from having a long-term relationship. People are trying to: 1) maintain the current understanding of a word that, like it or not, is weighted with lots of emotional and cultural power, 2) maintain their right to have a say in the manner in which society develops, 3) maintain the right of association.
The lawsuit against eHarmony was motivated by a desire to force eHarmony to do what the activists want, not because eHarmony was providing a service unavailable anywhere else.
You know, I don’t know WHERE we get the idea that gay men are anonymous sex fiends. Totally NSFW or really anyplace.
I’m absolutely positive that romantic love is exactly the same whether you happen to be straight or gay,†Dr. Helen Fisher, a biological anthropologist and chief advisor to Chemistry.com, said in a statement. “Who you love is one small aspect of the brain, but how you feel when you love is the same in every human being, regardless of sexual orientation.
Now, I’m no eharmony spokesperson or prosecutor like you, Mr. Pablo, but unless you also have a degree in biology or neurology (instead of just a passionate belief that gay brain chemistry is completely different than straight), I think the good doctor has you beat.
But, as has been mentioned, eHarmony was aimed at those who wanted long-term relationships. Not just warm fuzzy-feeling romantic-love.
Frank can I make fun of people with a foot fetish or is that some sort of phobia too? What about fat people? Really just give me a list of stuff that is ok to joke about so I will not offend anyone. Please I need help.
#64
Helen fisher does not have a degree in neurology or biology either. She has a graduate degree in Anthropology. Further, it would seem that the quote you used refutes what you believe Pablo believes. It turns out that homosexuals, being attracted to members of the same sex, do in fact have different brain chemistry.
Mr. Pink – lets just do a bunch of Helen Keller and dead baby jokes for Frank’s benefit.
Q How did Helen Keller go crazy?
A She read a stucco wall
Wouldn’t common sense say they would have to have a different brain chemistry? Cause genetically speaking, organisms are developed with regard to their ability to survive and procreate. Those without the correct traits are weeded out, and those with them survive, prosper, and pass their genetic code on to the next generation. Organisms that procreate sexually would have to be attracted to the other sex in order to pass their genetic code on. So basically if you are gay you are one big genetic failure, kinda like an asexual species not being attracted to itself.
PS not that there is anything wrong with that.
@ #69
Yeah, Carin, I saw that zombie post. I do seem to remember a time, not long ago, in fact, where I was derisively referred to as a “breeder” because of hetero proclivities. Of course, I’m a homophobe for believing a stereotype.
Q:What was Helen Keller’s dogs name?
A:Nauuauauauauauauaaau
No, I’m counsel for the defense. You’re leveling the charges, Frank. The Court requests that you pay attention.
No, what I’ve laid out here doesn’t require any expertise. You could find it all yourself if you were to do something crazy like click here. You could do that in order to, you know, get eHarmony’s view of what they do and why.
Gays are different from straight people, Frank, and most people believe it has an inherent quality, that is to say that you’re born gay. A program that matches women with men who have qualities they’ll find satisfying and vice versa, and is based on research into satisfaction and longevity in heterosexual relationships is not going to match same sex couples. But you can try to tighten a slotted screw with a phillips head driver all you like. It’s a free country.
So you’re saying that using stereotypes denotes fear? You’re off your nut, Frank. Stereotypes are all over society and they’re usually based in some truth. Except for that one about anyone who isn’t falling in line with whatever the militant gay agenda is today is a homophobe. That one’s a crock of shit.
My sterotype, Frank? Did you quote me somewhere in there? Gays should and do have every right to long term relationships. What they don’t have is the right to redefine words to suit them. They do not get to force society to declare that an apple is an orange.
Does she have this beat? And this? And this? Now, I grant you that Dr. Fisher is a respected anthropologist working for a dating website and the people in my links are only research neurologists who study the brain chemistry of gay people. But I think my links trump the esteemed Dr. Fisher.
But we’re sort of heading off the path here. So, one direct question: Is using sterotypes homophobia?
Q:What is the difference between a pile of dead babies and a Porche?
A:I don’t have a Porche in my garage.
Q What did Helen Keller do when she fell off the cliff?
A Screamed her hands off
Q What did Helen Keller’s folks do to punish her?
A Re-arranged the furniture
Q:Why can’t Helen Keller drive?
A:Because she is a woman.
Clearly, I fear and hate deaf/blind/mute people, as exemplified by such persons as Ms. Keller
How do you load dead babies onto a truck?
Pitchforks
I’m wondering now if Frank gets it yet.
Nah, probly too blinkered in his dumbass mindset
You’ve all fallen into the trap. It’s not about the merits of gay marriage, gay brain chemistry or the virtues of romantic gay relationships. It’s about property rights, which are, and have been, under assault for decades in America. Dr. Warren might be right, he might be wrong. What he definitely is is the proprietor of eHarmony and should therefore be protected from state appropriation of his property through actions such as this.
Where did Helen Keller’s parents take her on vacation?
They put her in the closet and told her it was Disneyworld.
Whoops! Fubared that last link. See here.
Why does it take 10 women with PMS to screw in a lightbulb?
*gritting teeth* It. Just. Does.
How do you blind an Asian?
Put a steering wheel in front of them.
But Jeffersonian, he’s lost those rights based on all the rest having been codified into NJ law. I agree. New Jersey doesn’t.
How was break dancing invented?
Somebody stole a hubcap from a moving car
LOL…I really have no dog in this fight, as I am pretty ambivalent to it all, but Pablo has just destroyed you Frank. Frank’s anthropologist’s quote, ““Who you love is one small aspect of the brain,…” kind of defeated Frank’s thesis. Then, mean old prosecuting Pablo goes and rips that thesis to shreds by citing, you know, ACTUAL neuroscientists and shit. Damn you science! Pablo by KO, second round.
OI, the funny thing is that it took me a lot longer to write that comment than it did to find the material. But who needs Google when you’ve got Dr. Helen Fisher, a biological anthropologist and chief advisor to Chemistry.com?
How many metrosexuals does it take to replace a swirly lightbulb?
Wait…I was told they never went out. How am I suppoed to dispose of it safely? Maybe I should check the EPA site before I do anything rash. Does it go in recycling? What will the neighbors think, anyway?
OI, that’s why I stalk Pablo …
BTW Pablo, that was a really good job.
urthshu & Mr. Pink:
I’ll go ahead and beat Frank to the punch.
BLIND/DEAFOPHOBES!
I’m not a psychologist but I play one in blogs … just like Frank.
Oh and Frank? I should have worded my response a little clearer as I had not commented but if you write this:
Then you were diagnosing and characterizing the commentators above as “phobic.” While I wasn’t one of the commentators I greatly object to that mountainous pile of scurrilous monkey crap. You are not in any position to declare anybody to have a “phobia” even if they made gay jokes as you do not have the training or the access to make a valid “diagnosis.” The use of the term is a way to make a blanket declaration that all of the comments have no merit because the people who made them are devastatingly flawed.
You, sir, are completely wrong on this particular point as is everyone else who uses that word in discussion. Unless, of course, you’d like to fax over your credentials and make a case as to how a person’s comments on a blog empowers you to diagnose complex psychological syndromes.
Ah, linkyshit. Google “gay brain chemistry” and you’ll see that I used the first 3 hits. Really, it ain’t hard to find, Frank.
But Jeffersonian, he’s lost those rights based on all the rest having been codified into NJ law. I agree. New Jersey doesn’t.
States, businesses and organizations have become little more than administrative units of the Central State. By expanding the idea of “rights,” we have utterly eviscerated liberty. We now beg for our chains.
Yeesh, I realize I sound like the Language Police™ but that word really pisses me off.
Pablo, great job on that deconstruct!
If it matters, I’m afraid of Rosie O’Donnell
“Who you love is one small aspect of the brain, but how you feel when you love is the same in every human being, regardless of sexual orientation.”
Well, if the feeling of romantic love is the same, what does the object matter? The feeling is the same, and isn’t that what’s important?
***
My wife and I used to go occasionally to a local Episcopal Church. At one of the ‘adult forum’ sessions before services, the rector (priestess…whatever…) was talking about how some woman wrote a book about ‘eating local’, and that her method of keeping kosher was to eat only foods that had been grown within 50 miles of her home. My wife, being Jewish, was getting a bit twitchy, but managed to hold her tongue, more’s the pity. When we got home, I asked her what she thought about the forum. “Look,” she said, “whatever you feel about eating local, that’s not what kosher means! And you can’t just redefine it to whatever you want.”
“And now you know how people feel about gay ‘marriage’,” I responded.
It was like a light going on.
Speaking of stereotypes, gays are very creative, right? So why no really snappy names for their dating sites?
Like:
Ye Olde Fudge Shoppe
Rumper Room
Manhole Inspector.com
The Episcopal Church has been redefining a lotta shit as of late. Kosher chow is the least of their sins.
Words mean whatever I say they mean god dammit. I love my Halal honey baked ham.
Funny thing is, psychology is what I’m trained in. I know what eHarmony does methodologically and can understand fully why they couldn’t guarantee good matches for gay couples.
What the activists are doing is forcing an outcome which may not be available in the wild through the methods eHarmony uses. They see eHarmony doing well at matching heteros and then, like heteros, say to themselves ‘I’d like to have that, too.’
And this is fine. Many people want devoted, stable relationships.
The problem is that too little is currently known about stable gay coupling, at least in the sense of being able to predict likely outcomes. Yes, behavior and personality characteristics are important and can match on a plethora of factors, but it would be irresponsible to factor in characteristics which may be important to gays and not to heteros, esp if done in ignorance.
Yet they go further in saying that eHarmony doesn’t want gays at all. Actually, I’m sure if eHarmony could achieve excellent results from gay couples they’d be touting that, too, since that way there’s more money coming in.
>>If it matters, I’m afraid of Rosie O’Donnell
Scared of widths?
al #103: Nuh-uh! Not gonna do it. Not goin’ there. Wouldn’t be prudent! you can’t make me…;-)
SalamiJunction.com
7-11.org
No! No! I won’t … no… must resist … too many jokes …
AAARRRRGGGGGHHHH!!!
jointfixtures.net
Cabincruisin.com
Reacharoundtheworld.edu
faints
Wall2WallCarpet.net
Cheezit. Marriage does not exist for the sake of love. It exists because heterosexual human sexual activity is what makes new people. Love and affection are ideally part of a marriage, but marriage is not like getting “pinned” so you can announce your extra-special romantic attachment to someone. Love cannot be denied, but that’s not all there is to marriage.
al #103: Nuh-uh! Not gonna do it. Not goin’ there. Wouldn’t be prudent! you can’t make me…;-)
I’ll believe it when I see it.
Transformers.com
too late.
ItTakesaVillagePeople.com
franksandbeans.net
I’m oldfashioned, but I got married so I could start having kids. Whiles certainly there is a bit of security being “married’ vs just dating/living together – that honestly doesn’t mean that much now-a-days. Both of my husband’s partners have gotten divorced in the last two years.
If I hadn’t wanted kids, I don’t know if I would have married, honestly. It certainly wouldn’t have been as important to me.
Somelikeithairy.com
Both of my husband’s partners
Horrible choice of words in a thread where the main subject is gaylords.
NONONONONONONONO!!!!!!!!!
fistycuffs.com
smokerslounge.net
kneepadknickers.org
FreeWilly.net
HaroldAndKumar.com
DailyKos.org
PS I agree horrible choice of words. I did a double take on “my husband’s partners”
So, when do we get an eHarmony for married people?
They already have that Lost, it is called http://www.AshleyMadison.com. I would post a link but I am not sure the site is SFW.
poopdeck.com
ButtBook
Did anyone see the line when we crossed it? We did cross it, right?
I guess I did post a link. Still not sure about the content lable though.
RubberRoom.com
hey…uh…thanks!
There was a time when “partner” did not mean the person you were having sex with …grumble grumble …
I went to Panera Bread for a mozzarella and tomato panini. What did I miss?
Rosie O’Donnell? Wasn’t she in Scared Straight?
#104 The Episcopal Church has been redefining a lotta shit as of late. Kosher chow is the least of their sins.
No kidding – and they’ve been at it for a while. As soon as I got a read on what was going on (and the rector/priestess made the arguement that opposing divorce and condoning slavery were moral equivalents), we fled ASAP to our local Catholic church.
Spong and Robinson are just the poster boys for the rot; it runs deep.
Great thread. If there’s a great topic on PW, its teh gay. Combine that with internet dating and liberal lawsuits, and we got gold.
neilandbob.cum
meya, maybe you’d be more comfortable at DU or KOS, stereotyping Christians as illiterate breeding neanderthals. That’s always good fun!
Cocksure.com
Boobs4Babes.com
tonguengroove.net
dropthesoap.com
eHarmony should have told New Jersey and California what Ronnie Barrett told California: Fuck You. I’m getting pretty sick of companies “settleing” our first amendment rights away.
…that would be “settling”
ramrodders.com
poopchuters.net
pie-eaters.org
pinktaco.gov
For the most part, people are ineluctably drawn to having an interest in discussions of human sexuality, of whatever sort and in whatever connection.
For the children!
The thread that runs through the legal assault on eHarmony and the demand for Gay Marriage is the same – to make a mockery out of your bourgeois institution, and to make sure that buttoned down, Lutheran housewives in the Midwest can’t maintain a tiny little smidgen of mental repose against the Fagocracy.
The message is clear – they won’t let you sneak away to a hidden little patch of the beach and build your own sand castle without them stomping all over it and kicking the sand in your face until you say that their sand castle is Fabulous!
[…] eHORMONEY Facebook Group: Homophobes are right, Gays can’t be trusted …. […]
Shouldn’t the less nutty Lefties do something to reign in the Velvet Mafia? I mean, as far as historical antecedents go, weren’t the Brownshirts a bunch of homos who went about harassing normal folks, setting the stage for the manly woman-fucking Right Wing SS to rid Germany of this plague, ending in a pile of dead homos and consolidated Right Wing power under and all-powerful Fuhrer?
#140
And if they get a PhD in psychology or history,they don’t want to hear anyone say “He’s a doctor, but not a real doctor”. Because if your opinion is hurtful to them, it shouldn’t be allowed. Civil union rights aren’t enough, some people demand acceptance and can’t believe it can’t be legislated into existence.
hidethewiener.com
bootiebandits.org
BenDover.blogspot
No, but I bet you could sue the steakhouse for failing to offer vegetarian meals.
Hey, how about if we redefine “gay” to mean anyone who’s having sex with someone else? It really doesn’t matter who you’re sleeping with. So why aren’t we all gay? And whats up with lesbian? Why aren’t they just gay too? There’s no difference between sleeping with a man and sleeping with a woman, right?
EMBRACE THE LIVING DICTIONARY!!!!
Alec how can they kick over a sandcastle when they float?