Forums | MacLife

I looked at several ... as in more than ten ... online dating services at random. All of them have a popup menu that pretty much consists of the following choices:

Man looking for a woman
Woman looking for a man
Man looking for a man
Woman looking for a woman

I assume by all the fuss that eHarmony is somewhat less accomodating to the lunatic fringe. Big deal. Go somewhere else.

freecat wrote:

bratboy wrote:

I'm curious as to what he meant by 'public' facilities.  When I hear 'public,' I think government.  Freecat is no dummy and I assume he knows exactly what he's talking about, but obviously discrimination has been prohibited in more than simply 'public' run facilities.

That's true and lunch counters are one thing. Segregated public schools, water fountains in state buildings, and city buses are another. In my view it makes no sense to abolish private discrimination. Why not abolish stupidity while you're at it.

No sense to abolish private discrimination, such as allowing employers to chose their employees based on their race, gender, religion, nationality ?

JakeTheTall wrote:

freecat wrote:

bratboy wrote:

I'm curious as to what he meant by 'public' facilities.  When I hear 'public,' I think government.  Freecat is no dummy and I assume he knows exactly what he's talking about, but obviously discrimination has been prohibited in more than simply 'public' run facilities.

That's true and lunch counters are one thing. Segregated public schools, water fountains in state buildings, and city buses are another. In my view it makes no sense to abolish private discrimination. Why not abolish stupidity while you're at it.

No sense to abolish private discrimination, such as allowing employers to chose their employees based on their race, gender, religion, nationality ?

Yes. It's called freedom of association. For one thing, is all such discrimination wrong? Is it wrong that a historically black college might pass me over in favor of an African-American candidate? I don't think so. That's the upside of free association. The downside is, no matter how disgusting it is to you, someone should be free to found a David Duke College somewhere that only hires white male protestants who sign some kooky Statement of Faith. You can't have good freedom without bad.

There's a really good point. If eHarmony can be coerced into creating a whole gay dating site, then theoretically all these other online dating services could be coerced into fleshing out their gender choice menus with all of the above choices and maybe even more.

And I don't even know what half of those choices actually mean!

Gurlugon wrote:

If I had to guess, "gender fluid" means you kinda oscillate between the two?

"Genderqueer" is making me draw a blank.

Anyways, I think this probably all comes back to the folks at eHarmony assuming that homosexuals do nothing but have sex and never actually seek a relationship. Why that's such a common thought, I dunno, but I hear and see it a lot.

It's such a common thought because so many homosexuals just want to smurf anything with the same type of genitalia that they have and don't give a smurf about being a relationship.

Somebody will very soon have wrote wrote:

How the smurf would you know that, DS?

Just because I disapprove of the whole homosexual "life"style and the gay agenda doesn't mean that I shun people just because they indulge in it, ya know. It's not like I know all that many of them personally ... between 50 and 100, I guess ... but I've never known any of them to show the slightest interest in a steady relationship, much less marriage. This tends to make me think that the whole fuss over "gay marriage" is just to yank the chains of the establishment ... something I can't very well denounce, as I have done my share of yanking on those chains through different avenues in my day but, still, suing eHarmony because they don't have a section for gays? It's just goofy. I would seriously think that all eHarmony would have to do to satisfy the terms of any lawsuit would be to put one simple sentence on their home page. Something like...

eHarmony ought to wrote:

If you're queer, click here. Get used to it.

Last edited by Duke Stratosphere (2008-11-26 11:16 am)

freecat wrote:

JakeTheTall wrote:

freecat wrote:

That's true and lunch counters are one thing. Segregated public schools, water fountains in state buildings, and city buses are another. In my view it makes no sense to abolish private discrimination. Why not abolish stupidity while you're at it.

No sense to abolish private discrimination, such as allowing employers to chose their employees based on their race, gender, religion, nationality ?

Yes. It's called freedom of association. For one thing, is all such discrimination wrong? Is it wrong that a historically black college might pass me over in favor of an African-American candidate? I don't think so. That's the upside of free association. The downside is, no matter how disgusting it is to you, someone should be free to found a David Duke College somewhere that only hires white male protestants who sign some kooky Statement of Faith. You can't have good freedom without bad.

Isn't there federal law making it illegal for employers to chose their employees based on their race, gender, religion, nationality ?

Duke Stratosphere wrote:

Just because I disapprove of the whole homosexual "life"style and the gay agenda doesn't mean that I shun people just because they indulge in it, ya know. It's not like I know all that many of them personally ... between 50 and 100, I guess ... but I've never known any of them to show the slightest interest in a steady relationship, much less marriage. This tends to make me think that the whole fuss over "gay marriage" is just to yank the chains of the establishment ... something I can't very well denounce, as I have done my share of yanking on those chains through different avenues in my day but, still, suing eHarmony because they don't have a section for gays? It's just goofy. I would seriously think that all eHarmony would have to do to satisfy the terms of any lawsuit would be to put one simple sentence on their home page. Something like...

eHarmony ought to wrote:

If you're queer, click here. Get used to it.

Wow....you've crossed the line into sounding like one of those guys who cares a bit *too* much.

Interesting.

bratboy wrote:

...and judging by the number of couples that have been married in the states whereWW such unions are legal, it's clear that there are a good number of homosexual couples who are interested in marriage.

There's no denying that.

bratboy wrote:

I've been in a monogamous relationship for 4 years.

Gets pretty smurfing old, doesn't it?

bratboy wrote:

If homosexual men have more sex, it's probably because of the male/male dynamic more than anything.  When I was younger, my single heterosexual male friends had about as much sex as they could get (which is to say, they weren't always successful).

They just didn't try hard enough.

bratboy wrote:

I know that when we head downtown on a weekend here in Austin, every club is packed with young heterosexuals who appear to be searching for something more immediate than their future husbands/wives.

I can't speak for the guys, but the girls are just obviously looking for me a bit too far south.