Comments

eHarm may have satisfied the gays, but it has been on a slippery slope for years - compromising the so-called Xian Values of Warren who has compromised for the sake of the ''almighty buck'' for years. I can think of nothing better than a total shakeup of this service & a wakeup call for Christian ministries who have (wrongly) endorsed eHarm for their own mis-guided greed.

One more thought... If Neil Clarke Warren truly ascribed to biblical precepts & chose to honor the God he claims to serve, he would just shut down the main site. Instead, he's now in bed with the devil.

What began as a site devoted to Christian's has now degraded to all religions/faiths, moreover by this settlement, has established an open door for other ''Christian'' sites to be in jeopardy through the courts.

SHAME ON YOU e-HARMONY!! You make me hurl.

You had a perfect opportunity to stand for righteousness and you blew it.

It's so sad to gays able to force their agenda on normal people. What can we do to support stopping this sickness from happening to eharmony? God help us.

No way! Can we say government infringement on the economy? Anyone? I hope the government will pick up the tab when it flops, since less than 10% of the population is BGLT (tops, according to the highest statistics and studies).

Isn't one of the most important qualities of a private company the right to serve a chosen clientele? How is that a right one can be legally denied?

It's outrageous that someone can sue because a dating site does not have homosexual dating options - how can a case like that not get thrown out of court?! Any customer service site can sell whatever it wants to - since when do customers sue producers who don't make products they want? Crazy, crazy. A sad day, when the culture wars mark another innocent casualty, to the insult and injury of common sense.

When did homosexuals become concerned about long-term compatibility? Was that before or after they put such a high value on pursuing traditional marriages?

Arguing against the idea of forcing business to serve all clients is a long term loosing argument. You may not like some of the results. But many of the positive results are important: businesses can't discriminate against people of color (blacks not being able to eat in the same room with whites), landlords can't discriminate against people with children (several national housing cases). There are also many potential cases of religious people loosing access to services because of their religion. We have to work for freedom regardless of some of the bad results that we don't like because working for freedom helps to insure that we continue to have freedom.

I'm afraid this is only the beginning. Where there is gay marriage, bridal services like florists, etc. will be forced to serve gays even if it goes against the business owners' morals. Someone has got to make the case that this is not the same as denying service to ethnic minorities. I agree with other posters that eHarmony should have shut down. I know people would have lost jobs, but it would have made a powerful statement.

Gays have always been interested in LTR. It is not just a sex issue - like so many homophobics like to think. That said, they crave relationships possibly more than straights - becuase it is an aberrant behavior in the eyes of society.

Responders have quoted a 10% minority is GLTSTG. That may be true - but the vast majority of the population (including "Christians") have adopted a live-and-let-live stance. "It's not my thing, but the Constitution gives them the freedom to do it if it's their thing!"

Due to constant, pervasive moral failure,"The Church" has lost it's voice in society, because it can no longer take the moral highground. Why should people listen to a pastor who tells people divorce is wrong, that if he and his wife were to divorce he would be faithful to the Bible and leave the pulpit - and then when his wife divorces him, change his tune and stay in the pulpit. Or how can we address sexual immorality when our priests openly pracitce a homosexual lifestyle? How do we tell people abortion is murder when "brothers" in different churches cannot take a stand?

The remnant is getting smaller - and the time for Jesus to return is getting closer. Even so, Lord Jesus, quickly come. AMEN!

I think people today need to understand that if they insist, first of all, on calling any GLBT "abnormal," you will be challenged, and
challenged to the death by true facts, new studies, and different interpretations of what is, and is not, normal. We are no longer living in Old Testament times, politically, spiritually, or socially. That is the first big difference.
Second, politically and theologically, the days of GLBT harrassment
without reprisal...are over. Legally, and physically. You will do jail time and fines for breaking the laws against hurting people, physically, verbally, and in print.
Your rights, and mine, end when they infringe upon the rights of others.
You who are in anger, denial, need to update your thinking, and fast, in order to survive and get along with the world you live in.
If you do not, you will truly be "Left Behind."
Blessings and Peace,
GMMelby, Pastor/Hospice Chaplain

This is just another example of selling out for the almighty buck.

Instead of standing up for his ideals and fighting this in court it was easier to give into his fears and show his real continue to show those nauseating TV ads that my now include gay couple in warm embraces.

Sadly, sometimes Christians don't like to practice the Golden Rule. They want to meet their own needs and want to prevent others from meeting theirs.

AMEN to everything "Megan" said! I totally agree!

What do Shane Claiborne, Jim Wallis,Tony Campolo, Walter Rauschenbusch, Brian McLaren, Rob Bell et al have to say about this?
This is right up their allee.

Yikes! We cannot take Christ out of the picture and substitute an "X"! Please watch using "X". Christ paid the highest price for us and we need to spell out his name. I grieve everytime I see a sign that says "X-Mas." Although, it won't be long at all until the Muslims, Homosexuals, ACLU, and the fans of baby murder will make it illegal to even BE a Christian.

Please get a copy of the ACLU vs. AMERICA and the Criminalizing of Christianity by Janet Folger. We must DO SOMETHING!!!!

www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/product?item_no=524683&netp_id=355882&event=ESRCN&item_code=WW&view=covers

NAUSEATING!!! How far America has slid from what she was founded upon. Sodom & Gomorah was such a place before God destroyed it. We must stand for what is just & right in these evil days and not turn our heads. It's not to late to turn from evil and cling to God our only hope. God forgive us!

Constant Street in her post may be misunderstanding the original meaning of XMAS. "X" is the first letter of the word for CHRIST in Greek (XRISTOS). Thus, X MAS refers to the Christ Mass each year.

Due to the expense of the materials upon which the Biblical texts were copied (e.g. papyrus, vellum, etc.), for many centuries it was common to use abbreviations for Christ (either XP or XT). (The often recited story that the "X" in XMAS stands for the cross of Christ is without historical foundation.)

Although it is probably true that some who use "XMAS" do so in order to avoid direct reference to Christ, it bothers me whenever I see Christians consciously allowing "secularists" et al to usurp and redefine OUR Christian terms, symbols, and holidays. Of course, none of us can single-handily prevent what some will do with anti-Christian motives, but I would prefer that Christians preserve and educate others about our traditions/history rather than cede all authority to them. The original meaning of "gay" has largely been eliminated from the English language due to modern "redefinition". It appears the same sort of redefinition is happening or has happened to "Xmas" -- although in this case many Christians may be the culprits by decrying its use.

Responding to Adam L.(Nov. 20), I would like to ask, "How does one 'work for freedom' by taking away someone else's freedom?" As Brendan Payne (Nov. 19) pointed out, this is NOT a matter of discriminating against certain client groups, but rather a coercion to alter one's product/service even if it violates one's conscience. That is not freedom.

Constance, X is the first letter in the ancient Greek word for Christ and was used by the ancient church as an abbreviation of his name.

We Christians have got to reconcile God's teachings about homosexuality with what medical science has proven - that many gays were born that way (ie. that a gay man's brain is very similar to a straight female's). Does this mean a blanket acceptance of all things homosexual? No, I don't believe so at all. But what does this mean? I don't know, but I do know that we must pray for God's wisdom so that we can do right by gay people and by God.

Does everybody notice that the second you say its a Christian site and therefore a "particular belief" site that the homosexuals bring up the Constitution and freedom and the how Christians are full of hate and denial and tell us to get with the new modern day. Why would a homosexual want to be on a Christian site where members don't believe in homosexuality (meaning sex with the same sex which has nothing to do with the color of your skin which is not a "choice"). They want to force the site to give in to them, to give them credibility, so as to lead to legality. They certainly aren't following the beliefs of Christianity so they aren't on the site to find other Christians. I don't know where the Constitution mentions people doing sex, when it states all men are created equal, it meant different religious beliefs, political beliefs, not who the person is jumping because sex wasn't thought of as a freedom issue at the time. The main arguement at the time was slavery, not homosexuality and because of the South, the Constitution didn't have slavery in it at first. People didn't come to this country so they could jump who they wanted, they came for religious and political freedom and in starving countries to where they could eat. Now the site should have put everybody on the same site not separate so that these homosexuals could find Christians who can bring them to Jesus so the homosexuals can learn how to practice abstinence from homosexuality. The site should have fought it in the courts like the Boy Scouts did or mixed the homosexuals in, instead they give them their own site. So, now, I'm demanding that eharmony create a site for adults who love (have sex with) little children or with animals, doesn't the Constitution give this freedom to adults to love whom they want like the homosexuals say. The law needs to be changed to free sex, period. Free sex is now openly being done outside of man & women marriage so let's make it all legal and make eharmony for any type of sex you want. Oh, wait, then it wouldn't be for Christians, but that's what this homosexual wants so lets give it to him and let him enjoy his site.

Who cares what junk science has or has not proven about the brains of homosexuals? "Science" had also "proven" at one point in history that the world was flat and those that disagreed were harshly persecuted. Homosexuality is about behavior. They have a choice in how they behave sexually. The existence of bisexuals proves this. Who cares if someone is predisposed to a certain behavior by genetics? Does that mean that child molesters, serial murderers, and rapists should get a pass - can't we all just get along?!? Child molesters - find your next "love" interest on ChildMolesterMatch.com (brought to you by the reluctant Neil Clark Warren and the AG of the great State of New Jersey).

We can no longer afford to do nothing! Soon the 8% fringe is going to be telling 92% how we will live our lives. The will of the people won't stop them (CA). The rule of law won't stop them (Lansing, MI). God help us all!

I don’t know how wise this is legally (I haven’t read the complaint or the settlement agreement). A couple of things though, and I hope Mark Elfstrand and others reporting on this on Christian radio will consider this too: What if the dating service refused to offer their services to interracial couples?. I know it’s hard to argue about this issue or convince people who have concluded that about 5% to 10% of the population being born with same sex attraction is the primary moral threat facing our country, so I won’t even try. If you go to the link to the Reuter’s article about this, on the bottom of the page you will see a photo essay on homeless people. Look at the pictures and reflect. Think about this issue without just falling back on ideas and arguments handed to you by James Dobson, et al. Poverty, War, Greed, and Militarism are all moral values issues too. Weigh the issues. What’s more important? Somehow, I don’t think gay people wanting to find dates with compatible people ranks very high.

Remember when left-handedness was punished by teachers, who regarded it as "abnormal"? Now we know that it is not a "choice", but a given.
Some day people will understand that homosexuality is part of the DNA and is a "given". Human beings have always found it difficult to accept people who were "different" from their society -- blacks could be slaves. (Didn't the Bible say, "Slaves, obey your masters"?) Jesus never rejected anyone because of conditions over which he/she had no control -- leprosy, nationality, etc. In every age, race, and creed the percentage of left-handed people and of homosexuals is about the same. How do we think Jesus would regard them today?

The devil and his children will trample the holy city. It's going to get worse before Christ comes...amd many will fall away. Before you know it they will be rejoicing and sending gifts to one another saying "Look! We finally got rid of Christianity from off tthe earth.

In circumventing private business rights the court must have held that homosexuality is the same as race from a civil rights standpoint. We're entering a very slippery slope. What about bisexuals? Can they sue if eharmony doesn't offer both options to one person? And the list can go on. Dr. Warren must not be rich enough yet.

I don't doubt that most gays think they are "born that way," and there is some evidence to support that, but behavior is, or so I thought, a product of the will. And, as far as I know, no one ever died due to lack of sex.

It is positively mind-boggling that such a small percentage of the population is dictating wholesale legal decisions in the area of sexuality. Unbelievable. When is the majority going to say "enough!"?

The "Constitutional rights" argument is really a ruse as well. This is not at its core about "rights," it's about forcing the larger society to accept something that it has forever viewed as abnormal in order to satisfy the fancy of a minority.

Just one more compromise...down a very slippery slope!

The continued justification or exoneration of certain behaviors on the basis of nature or nurture is a hallmark of this generation. Indeed, we are continually on the run from personal responsibility and find new, creative ways to avoid it.

Due to recidivism there's some evidence that pedophilia has a genetic component....should we let all pedophiles out of jail and tell them we're sorry?? Restore their constitutional "right" to live next to an elementary school if they want to? What the heck is going on here?

When is common sense and moral restraint going to make a comeback?

Not only is this a ill-willed group trying to force their abnormal lifesytle on the masses, but more importantly, it's a vice by the pits of hell to force real Christians to have to live with something that is an abomination unto God. But I don't care how mankind legalizes homosexuality, it is still a SIN! Check out the following blog address,a nd see what it says on this subject.
www.thischristianjourney.typepad.com

Mark E., what if you moved to some strange country where the religious people told you that it’s perfectly natural for you to be sexually attracted to and love your wife, but only same sex couples were sanctioned by their god? Would you want the secular authorities to preserve your human rights? Would you just happily give up your desire for your wife and become celebate? It is true, you will not die from not having sex, but is this right?

Re the comment on "left-handedness"-the Latin for "sinister" means left-handed...but where is the evidence that the brain of a homosexual is organically different?

Homosexuality is a sin.
Period.
My own person background doesn't matter.
What the Holy Bible says does matter.
While the behaviour, as a sin, is forgiveable by the Death/Resurrection/& cleansing by Jesus' Forgiveness of the sin...
it doesn't require a special section in eHarmony's organization for Homosexuals for their perversities.
Absolutely NOT.
Am I a voice crying out in the wilderness on this matter?
eHarmony, return to your purity, please?

Three quick thoughts.

First, e-Harmony's status as a Christian dating service has clearly been canceled. They are now in the same category as all of the other sex-connex websites out there.

Second, the argument that we hurt people's feelings by "bashing" their sin is ludicrous. First, if sin is deadly (and it is) then telling them that they are living in sin and that there is a cure (repentance and Jesus) is no different than telling someone who has cancer that it's deadly and there is treatment for it. Second, it's just too bad that the truth offends people. As a very wise man once told me, "If I offend you, that's a problem. But if the Word of God offends you, I let it offend!" Paul put it like this: "The message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing."

Finally, to those who say we must accept homosexual behavior because homosexual drives are inborn, I say, ALL sinful drives are inborn. We are NATURALLY greedy, envious, prideful, lustful, hateful, immoral, and on and on. That doesn't mean that we should all go around encouraging each other in our sin. Rather, we should call sin what it is, and encourage each other to abandon it. Giving those who indulge in unrepentant sin, ESPECIALLY sexual sin, license, protection, and even preferential treatment is not only unwarranted, it is foolish and self-destructive.

I fear that, once we buy the line that "they can't help it, they were born that way," we will hear (as we already have started to hear) pedophiles and other sexual deviants make the same claim. Then, maybe, we will begin to realize what fools we have been to believe the lie in its current form.

Is the opportunity to marry another person a "human right?" If it is then what about the heterosexuals who can't seem to find a mate? What might we do for them to guarantee them their "rights"? Disingenuous mental gymnastics can carry the "rights" argument to ridiculous conclusions. Yet another slippery slope.

The fact of the matter is we are exceptionally tolerant. We don't, nor should we, preach hatred of anyone, including gay people. That admonition is integral to a faith that also does not condone homosexuality. There are legal options in every state that undergird a persons's right to form a relationship outside of marriage, so "rights" are not necessarily being trampled upon.

At the risk of stating the obvious, a society where homosexuality is the norm, ostensibly endorsed by that society's "gods," would soon cease to exist without Herculean technological efforts or the enslavement of heterosexuals for procreative purposes.

Mark, I think you just live in a different world. God bless you.

Now, I wonder just how much of the "service" does eharmony have to provide. Do they really have to match people or just open the site? I don't know. This is actually an opportunity for eharmony to minister to the gay community. I'm sure the judge's decision didn't say that the new site couldn't discuss Jesus.

Johnw, condescension rather than intelligent engagement. That's the usual tack when you cannot rationally win an argument.

Once again, one person has been allowed to change things for his/her own wants and needs. We, the Christian conservatives have sat on our rears and allowed this to occur again. Where are those who still believe the Scriptures and what is said there about this very issue? Most gay people are not monogamous and we all know that. The liberal, leftist court has once again ruled against religion and gotten away with it, in violation of the Constitution, and we the conservative Christians have sat on our pews and said nothing. We need to begin to write those who need writing about this kind of travesty forced on another Christian-based company by one (1) person - how ridiculous can it get? I'm afraid to see!

Some of the arguments Christians are using against gay marriage would apply just as well to gay dating. Now that you've passed Prop. 8 in California, why not recycle the same arguments to try to criminalize gay dating? Seriously, why not?

This isn't a confessional, so I feel I should leave some information private. But many of you would stone me and damn me to hell for the way I was born. I'm sure of it, reading what you wrote. Who made any of you G-d?

Jesus spoke of the evils of the love of money, of abandoning the poor, the homeless, the wretched, the widows. The least of these. Cheating those out of their rights. He said that the Kingdom of G-d belonged to such as these, not the self-righteous, not those who sat in the place of judgment where judgment was G-d's alone.

If we see xtians sin, we need to point it out in love. If we see those without Christ sin, how else are we to expect them to act? We are called to love and forgive, to act with grace and love those around us, even those we don't get along with or understand because WE ONCE WERE THOSE WRETCHES.

And we still sin. We still will sin.

Homosexuality is not the "biggest" sin that everyone is making it out to be. And really, I doubt it is a "sin" anymore. (We all are guilty of cutting and pasting from Leviticus, then. Either accept it all or don't.) Jesus didn't speak of it. And I'm sure if it was that big of a deal, he would have. "How dare you call that unclean which I have made clean?"