eHarmony to Precipitate Same-Sex Relationships
by Motte Brown on 11/20/2008 at 10:50 AM
Just as I suspected a year ago, eHarmony founder Neil Clark Warren, a confessing Christian, has agreed to facilitate relationships the Bible explicitly condemns. As part of a settlement in a discrimination case filed against eHarmony, the company will launch a new dating service for the gay community called Compatible Partners.
Here's the story:
The settlement is the result of a complaint New Jersey resident Eric McKinley filed against the online matchmaker in 2005. McKinley, 46, said he was shocked when he tried to sign up for the dating site but couldn't get past the first screen because there was no option for men seeking men.
"It's very frustrating and it's very humiliating to think that other people can do it and I can't," he said. "And the only reason I can't is because I'm a gay man. That's very hurtful."
Neither the company nor its founder, Neil Clark Warren, acknowledged any liability. Under the settlement, eHarmony will pay New Jersey state division $50,000 to cover administrative costs and will pay McKinley $5,000.
McKinley called the settlement "fabulous" and said he was happy with the outcome. He's considering signing up for the new site once it launches.
Pasadena, Calif.-based eHarmony said it plans to launch its new service, called Compatible Partners, on March 31.
It's not like eHarmony lost the case. They settled. They simply rolled over with little more than a whimper. And I believe there are only two reasons for this: 1) The case provided cover for the company to launch a more hedonistic service for more riches or 2) They feared losing and were looking after the bottom line, wanting to protect the empire Warren has built on hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of disappointed romantic hopefuls.
Like the Boy Scouts of America, eHarmony should have been willing to shut the whole thing down instead of helping precipitate sinful sex between men and men and women and women.
1. Jo said the following at 11:01 AM on Nov 20
The whole lawsuit was ridiculous. Anyone suing gay dating sites?
It still could have won I guess, in today's climate. But settling was the wrong choice. However, it seems pretty clear that eHarmony is no longer operating according to Christian principles anyway, so it's not really a surprise.
2. Louise, 43 said the following at 11:16 AM on Nov 20
I'm not familiar with e Harmony.
Did it begin as a Christian dating web site?
3. obewan said the following at 11:18 AM on Nov 20
I can't believe they won the lawsuit.
How do they have a leg to stand on? There are hundreds of "special interest" dating websites out there. We have all seen them: Lutheran Singles, Catholic Singles, Jewish Singles, 30+ singles, on and on ad nausium. Should I sue them because I am in the wrong age range or go to the wrong denominations' church? Perhaps we should sue the gay dating websites for excluding straight people. I have even seen their links at many of the so-called "Christian" dating webites. Beware of the link to friendfinder.com. It is not for straight people!
4. LouiseinPA said the following at 11:21 AM on Nov 20
I don't support this decision but I wonder if it was even legally possible to operate in NJ without providing same sex couples services. I know that Ocean Grove, NJ had difficulties because of the legality of Civil unions in the state. Ocean Grove is a Methodist affiliated organization that owns a pavilion along the boardwalk of the beach, which it also controls. Anyways, the organization rents the pavilion out to couples for weddings but refused to allow a same sex couple to use the site for a civil union ceremony. needless to say, a year and half after the controversy started, the legal battle is dragging on and the costs have skyrocketed. The organization will almost certainly lose the fight in the end and i'm not really sure what they will have gained other than the ill-will of the majority of local residents, both gay and straight. So, I'm not always sure fighting tooth and nail in the courts is the way to go. You could spend endless time and money and wind up losing....
5. Motte said the following at 11:22 AM on Nov 20
Louise, 43:
Yes.
Here's a link with some info about the beginnings of eHarmony.
6. Jennifer said the following at 11:26 AM on Nov 20
I'm with Jo. Can I sue a gay dating website, because it's biased against straight people? That law suit was bogus from the start.
Their site matches people
(supposedly) on scientific compatibility research that did not cover same sex relationships. I don't know why Clark settled but Motte may be on to something. I too think it all came down to money. That is a shame.
7. Carrie (the original) said the following at 11:26 AM on Nov 20
On-line dating . . argh. I've tried it, but after a few months I realized that "Mr. Right" is not going to be found by gazing over a 2-demensional profile.
It happens to a few, but I will not be one of those few.
Also, e-Harmony has been under fire. I thought I read somewhere that only 5% of matches work out. People have probably been dropping off like flies and the bottom line is a concern.
I'm ambivalent about Neil Warren's decision. As a business man, he did what he had to do. As a Christian, he unabashedly compromised. Is he "helping precipitate sinful sex" between homosexual couples? I have my doubts. I have some pretty strong doubts that any gay-identified individuals has re-thought their pattern of life simply because Neil Warren was being stubborn.
The help that those sort of people need is not going to come from a few privately owned companies refusing to say "Gay is OK".
As e-Harmony "opens up" its services, it will be practicing homosexuals that are going to sign up for their services. People who are already planning on continuing their way of life - with or without Neil Warren's endorsement.
Neil Warren should be ashamed of unabashedly compromising. However, let's not credit him with things that are going to continue regardless of his company's policies.
8. Kevin said the following at 11:38 AM on Nov 20
Do it. Sue a gay-only dating website for the same reason, see if you win.
Honestly, I think e-Harmony could have won the lawsuit easily.
9. Holly (single, non-parent one) said the following at 11:49 AM on Nov 20
This is an interesting dilemma - surely worthy of a full hour in a college ethics course. Perhaps Mr. Warren SHOULD be willing to shut it down entirely. As someone who met the man I will likely marry on eHarmony, I'm glad he didn't. And in my very large, very diverse group of friends and acquaintances, our collective experience spans nearly every online dating service. Eharmony has led to seven marriages and four children, so far. It is the only one with a marriage to its credit.
This is a great topic for discussion (and Motte, I would really appreciate your chiming in on this!) -- how far SHOULD convictions go? There is a Christian woman in my city who owns a coffee shop. It is patronized by Christians, largely, but the local Atheist group also meets there. Should she shut down to not precipiate the facilitation of sinful ideas? Under the law, I am reasonably sure that telling them they can't meet there would be no different than refusing to allow Jews or Muslims to meet and could lead to quite a nasty lawsuit, even in a red state. Besides, they are polite and their children are well-behaved and they tip well. What is more harmful, atheists planning how to raise their children as such, or consenting adults Adam and Steve meeting and bedding one another? What if the local gay group also began holding meetings there? Should she shut down for the same reason Mr. Warren should?
For myself, I don't know on this one. Eharmony has brought together many, many Christian couples. We are called to abide by the law of the land. On the other hand, faciliating gay couples meeting is a far cry from something much more passive, like paying taxes even though some of that money goes to fund abortions or to kill civilians in a war the morality of which reasonable people disagree upon.
Wow. This is a good one.
10. Christina (in green) said the following at 11:50 AM on Nov 20
Louise, #4
That really is very disheartening.
The Episcopal Parish of North Florida has a really nice wooden church on a pier overlooking a lake and the only people allowed to marry there are Episcopalians. No one has ever caused a problem with that kind of "discrimination".
And, after all of the comments around here that say that churches will still be able to uphold their practices without threat from courts over legal same-sex marriage, how on earth can they have feet to stand on when they hear about stuff like this???
11. LouiseinPA said the following at 11:58 AM on Nov 20
Just to point out that in Western Europe, many Catholic Churches do not perform civil marriages because they would be forced to do so for same sex couples. So, they simply provided sacramental marraiges but not civil marriage liscences. The US may be headed down that road....
12. P-Rest said the following at 12:10 PM on Nov 20
Personally, I completely understand what happened here as far as the lawsuit goes. It is no more ridiculous than McDonald’s getting sued because someone spilt their coffee in their lap and claimed they weren’t warned as to how hot it might be. Forget the fact it was freshly brewed coffee. It’s absolutely stupid, but it happens unfortunately. That dude could have went to another website, plain and simple.
What I have issue with is the settlement. Either you stand for something or you don’t. Now I won’t pretend to know what went on in Mr. Warren’s mind or that of his legal team, but they should have fought it if for no other reason than the lawsuit being an outrageous attack on what eHarmony stood for (or supposedly stood for; there have been arguments to the contrary which is fine, we’re just sticking with the basics here).
I also think that the settlement means that the deliberation was a discussion clearly based on a business-financial, business-image type of calculus because if it was something that couldn’t be allowed or condoned in eHarmony’s mission statement, belief statement, etc, then they wouldn’t have done it (or shouldn’t have done it for that matter). It just saddens me that they didn’t stick and fight it out. Even if you don’t like eHarmony, if it happened to them who else can it happen to? That’s what’s scary…
13. Derek Wong said the following at 12:19 PM on Nov 20
I heard about this on the radio this morning, and it brought to mind some of the previous mentions on this site that have been made about the state of eHarmony. It's a shame really. But it's actually fairly expected considering how things were going.
I wonder if anyone has sat down with Neil Clark Warren and expressed these feelings. If he continues to go on determined in his ways then he should rightly be shunned as a brother (1 Cor 5:11-13). The hope is that someone will, and he will see that he is in a position to stand for what the Bible says.
14. Adam said the following at 12:26 PM on Nov 20
Perhaps I'm being a bit simplistic. The guy developed a somewhat complex math formula. At issue is whether said formula can/should be applied towards paying customers who want to use it for morally objectionable purposes.
To shut down because you won't sell the results of the formula for same-gender relationships? I think that is overkill.
Warren is being very smart here. He is launching a separate site. He can be totally financially absolved from that part of the company. He can continue to operate without further fear of lawsuits on the topic.
15. Justin said the following at 12:30 PM on Nov 20
Motte, the answer is 2).
Neil Warren is running a business. Not a church.
16. (Canadian) Andrew R said the following at 12:35 PM on Nov 20
"Just as I suspected a year ago, eHarmony founder Neil Clark Warren, a confessing Christian, has agreed to facilitate relationships the Bible explicitly condemns."
The one between a man and a menstrating woman? (Lev. 18:19)
Now that that's out of me, I actually think this suit holds little water. The other commenters here are right- there are websites for people looking to meet a member of the same sex.
But, really, online dating is NOT the way to go.
17. Holly (single, non-parent one) said the following at 12:48 PM on Nov 20
One more question.
Motte wrote: "...whole thing down instead of helping precipitate sinful sex between men and men and women and women."
Since eHarmony does not require a pledge of abstinence until marriage, he is also precipitating sinful sex between men and women. Should he still shut it down?
I'm not saying he should or shouldn't -- this is quite a fascinating dilemma to me, much like the one my aforementioned neighbor faces with her coffee shop. Just tossing the principles and ideas around for insight.
18. Sylvia said the following at 12:56 PM on Nov 20
I think this is going to lose eHarmony money. Their original pitch was along the lines of: Yeah, it costs a little more, but they test these dimensions of compatibility because they are interested in creating strong marriages rather than casual hookups. They were trying to appeal to people who were serious about marriage but considered normal dating sites to be meat markets. The angle was that customers were investing in their future happiness.
eHarmony has lost that unique appeal. It started to by slowly being less and less about marriage, and now, well.. That goofy little personality test is the only thing that differentiates them from other much cheaper matchmaking sites, and if that little personality test can just as easily apply to one-night stands and gay relationships, it has been cheapened considerably as well.
19. Craig M. said the following at 12:58 PM on Nov 20
I never doubted that Warren would eventually go down this road. Frankly, I always found his shtick more than a little creepy and pathetic. The guys in his advertisements are always talking about how "great" it was to get away from the "comptetition" of the "dating scene," while their wives try to hide their discomfort at having settled for a man who thought it was "great" to not have to compete with other men. And it was clear from the beginning that Warren was in it to make money. He used the conservative Christian community to get started, and he's leaving it in the dust now.
The complaint by the homosexual man is, of course, absurd--on par with suing a vegetarian restaurant because they won't serve you a steak. Warren would have won if he'd fought. Frankly, he probably welcomed the lawsuit as an excuse to branch out and make more money with a second launch.
20. rushncap said the following at 1:14 PM on Nov 20
Louise (#11) -- I really hope so! Get churches out of state business altogether. Let legal marriages be handled by the state, and leave religious ceremonies to the churches.
21. Hannah C. said the following at 1:24 PM on Nov 20
And THIS is why I would probably not support gay marriage even if I thought it was okay.
This is where I am afraid the US is going...and honestly, I think it would be better for civil marriages to be strictly civil and church marriages to be strictly church. Maybe that would keep churches from being sued for not performing gay marriages (which I can see as a possibility down the road).
22. Kari said the following at 1:28 PM on Nov 20
uhhh I thought we lived in America...where people can run their businesses without fear of ridiculous lawsuits that impose on their values. Maybe Mr. Gay Guy could have just found a website for, I don't know, Gays?? Would have made for quicker partner matches.... I hear silly lawsuits take up a lot of time that could otherwise be used on dating.
23. J. Tucker said the following at 1:51 PM on Nov 20
I agree with many of the sentiments in this post. Mr. Warren DID simply roll over. Thank God this wasn't a court decision setting precident. It would be an absolutely terrible practice of law. There is no way that the plaintiff would have won in court. In fact, I'm pretty sure the judge would have thrown the case out or given summary judgment to Mr. Warren. Who the heck was his attorney?!?
On the other hand, I feel it's hardly fair to call the same-sex counterpart to eHarmony as "hedonistic." Generally, people don't use eHarmony for hedonistic experiences. I'm sure that there are plenty of other websites for that, not to mention Craigslist.
24. Renata said the following at 2:03 PM on Nov 20
It will be interesting to see if some of the other Christian sites (Christianity Today, Crosswalk, and others) drop eHarmony who support their singles websites.
25. BDB said the following at 2:14 PM on Nov 20
Kari (#22) wrote:
>>uhhh I thought we lived in America...where people can run their businesses without fear of ridiculous lawsuits that impose on their values.<<
On Nov. 3rd, I thought that too...
26. Ryan said the following at 2:20 PM on Nov 20
It should be said that this is likely a corporation. I highly doubt he made the decision himself. There is likely a board, and stakeholders who pushed him into this decision.
27. BDB said the following at 2:20 PM on Nov 20
Christina (#10) wrote:
>>The Episcopal Parish of North Florida has a really nice wooden church on a pier overlooking a lake and the only people allowed to marry there are Episcopalians. <<
That's because the Episcopal church is in favor of gay marriage. If they tried to limit it to heterosexual marriages, I'm sure they'd get sued. Wait - Florida passed the traditional marriage amendment...
28. IMO said the following at 2:26 PM on Nov 20
Now there's a class action lawsuit against eHarmony....in CA,of course
29. rushncap said the following at 2:35 PM on Nov 20
That's right, BDB, electing Obama has destroyed this nation. Best move elsewhere, eh? Good luck.
30. Motte said the following at 3:00 PM on Nov 20
(Canadian) Andrew R:
No. Not the kind of relationship you referenced in Lev. 18. I'm talking about the relationships Paul references in Romans 1:26,27:
"For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error."
And again in 1 Corinthians 6:9,10:
"Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."
31. Christina (in green) said the following at 3:15 PM on Nov 20
BDB,
The dioceses of the episcopal church are still in charge of their own doctrine.
The North Florida Diocese and the Central Florida Diocese are both opposed to the results of the National Episcopal Convention (including, but not limited to, the practicing homosexual as bishop and gay marriage thing)
32. J. Tucker said the following at 3:39 PM on Nov 20
I just want to take a moment to correct misconceptions that certain conservative groups are purposefully perpetrating, i.e. telling lies. A church CANNOT be forced to marry same-sex couples. Unless the First Amendment to the federal constitution is changed, this will never be the case. Further, a church will NOT loose its tax-exempt status if it refuses to marry same-sex couples.
Think about it. Just like a Buddhist temple can refuse to marry two christians, Christian churches can refuse to marry anyone they want. Even members of their own congregation.
33. BDB said the following at 3:50 PM on Nov 20
Christina (#31) wrote:
>>The dioceses of the episcopal church are still in charge of their own doctrine.<<
Oh. Thank you for he correction.
34. Kari said the following at 3:53 PM on Nov 20
If you are a believer, ALL aspects of your life are built upon and subject to the Bible, business conduct/choices not excluded. Mr. Warren should have closed down his "service" instead of giving in.
AND how exactly DID this case hold water? Why was a private business forced to cater to this man? I thought only companies that receive federal funds are required by law to be non-descriminatory.
Are Christian book stores and other religious service centers going to be forced to hire practicing, unrepentant gay and lesbians or close down?
35. Anonymous said the following at 4:15 PM on Nov 20
Re: J. Tucker (#32)
Unless the First Amendment to the federal constitution is changed, this will never be the case. Further, a church will NOT lose its tax-exempt status if it refuses to marry same-sex couples.
In theory, you're correct. In practice, there's always a chance that liberal Supreme Court judges might defend the First Amendment in most cases except when the person/organization in question is considered Christian (or too "right-wing" for their view of the Constitution).
36. Zusanne said the following at 4:15 PM on Nov 20
I wondered where this case was going to go. Isn't this the same type of scare tactic that some "civil rights leaders" were using to raise their money--I'm going to sue you for millions of dollars if you don't donate to us? One particular coalition that I know of has raised millions this way. And those who speak out against such tactics--or this court case--are considered to be bigots.
not bigots--just people who want to live bibilcally!
I'm proud of those in FL and in CA who voted to make a statement that we won't be bullied by those with a different agenda. Somehow we have to get the same message to the judiciary!
37. pass the ammunition said the following at 4:21 PM on Nov 20
Unlike everyone here is assuming, gay dating websites allow you to select WHATEVER YOU LIKE, because they also cater to bisexuals.
38. BDB said the following at 4:29 PM on Nov 20
J. Tucker (#32) wrote:
>>A church CANNOT be forced to marry same-sex couples. <<
Yet.
There's a lot of litigation going on where people have been fired from private businesses for declining to provide services that violate their conscience. This includes a doctor who declined to provide fertility service for a same-sex couple (even though he did provide a medical referral to an alternative provider) and wedding photographers.
The legal strategy being employed is to position homosexual marriage as a protected civil right which then trumps any other state rights. Even if a church has Federal tax exemption, it doesn't stop a state like California from choosing to strip that state tax exemption from any organization that "descriminates." You could easily end up with a situation where a state tries to force organizations to do something, even though it would likely be litigated as a test case.
Gay marriage has never been legal in history, the judges creating this "right" are not doing it based on legal precedent. They are inventing it. And in doing so, they are ignoring human biology.
How much easier would it be to decide that a state tax exemption is a government "subsidy" that can be removed from any organization that "descriminates" under state law?
You see it happening with the Boy Scouts now. Even though they won their Supreme Court decision 9-0 that they can't be forced to allow homosexual scout masters, all over the nation they are being de-funded by the United Way and other groups because they are exercising their civil rights that have been upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court.
39. DannieA said the following at 4:30 PM on Nov 20
rushncap...
I can't speak for BDB, but I don't think he was talking about Obama...if he was alluding to lawsuits...we live in the state of CA...figure it out.
40. BDB said the following at 5:31 PM on Nov 20
rushncap (#29) wrote:
>>That's right, BDB, electing Obama has destroyed this nation. Best move elsewhere, eh? Good luck.<<
Well, so far only the stock market believes that. I'll wait until he gets into office. He has been cited for making the "rookie" mistake of not announcing a Treasury Secretary first. The fact that a Health and Human Services secretary has been named first is troubling given market conditions.
But I really wasn't thinking of him specifically until you mentioned it. There is widespread celebration on the Left due to the election. Two longstanding Democratic committee chairs were replaced today - replaced by more-liberal members who are determined to enact global warming legislation. This has profound consequences for anyone whose electricity comes from coal. Which is about half the U.S.
Proposition 8 in California passed with the same % as Barak Obama was elected with - slightly more than 52%. I haven't seen any protesters breaking the law because of his election. But I have seen repeated incidents of protesters angry over passage of Proposition 8 - including invading churches during worship services. These kinds of unlawful intimidation tactics.
But the post in question dealt with ridiculous lawsuits. The Democratic party is known to be quite friendly with trial lawyers. It's a major constituency. I'm certain that one result of the election will be to make crazy lawsuits easier. After all, the creation of gay marriage in California began with the mayor of San Francisco broke the law and began issuing marriage licenses. This was litigated up to the California Supreme Court, which eventually ruled in favor of gay marriage. That ruling was overruled by Proposition 8. Immediately, Democratic politicians and lawyers filed suit to overturn the will of the people. You don't see any Republicans filing lawsuits to throw out Obama's election. That does trouble me greatly - that elected Democrats refuse to follow the law.
If they will do that for gay marriage, and if they get away with it, I have no doubt that they will simply start ignoring the law on other things. There are already movements to force religious, 501(c)3 hospitals peform abortions or shut down. I don't think those on the left have any hesitation to force religious 501(c)3 churches to do things, too.
41. brx said the following at 12:04 AM on Nov 21
A key statement from Adam (14):
"The guy developed a somewhat complex math formula. At issue is whether said formula can/should be applied towards paying customers who want to use it for morally objectionable purposes."
Iff the formula model has valuable accuracy and iff Mr. Warren and the board's intentions are good (Biblical), then there is a third possibility in addition to Motte's two suggestions: 3) it could be a very strategic move with the least amount of political objection, to allow their formula/model to reveal some of the deep-rooted problems and struggles of practicing homosexuals, in a personal way that might cause some of them to seek healing.
Maybe... just maybe... it's worth praying for.
I don't know how many of us personally know Neil Clark Warren, but I do know: Love always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.
Grace, peace & adventure out there
42. Ken said the following at 1:26 AM on Nov 21
Hey, BDB, fellow Eagle Scout here. Although I wish the Supreme Court decision had been 9-0, it was 5-4 in our favor, and it's scary to think what would have happened if it had gone the other way.
43. Mike Theemling said the following at 3:25 AM on Nov 21
There are a few logical fallacies out there which need to be corrected.
Opening a dating site for gays does not equate to condoning gay sexual (sinful) behavior
The problem with this statement here is that this new site is more than just a mere social network that caters to gays, but specifically is geared towards encouraging dating relationships. And to claim that this doesn't help propogate same sex sexual acts, cohabitation, etc. is extremely naive. Do people go onto other dating sites specfically to look for platonic relationships (perhaps a very small percentage do, but the vast majority do not)?
Since eHarmony does not require a pledge of abstinence until marriage, it is also precipitating sinful sex between men and women
This is throwing out the baby with the bathwater argument. Simply because it does not insist upon a commitment to abstinence (I don't know of a single matching site that does and frankly, enforcing it would be impossible anyway) is not the same as condoning or encouraging promiscuity. It is true that they did release an article entitled, "Navigating the One Night Stand" some time ago, but they did pull the article and apologize for it. Perhaps this claim would have merit if it specificially reminded you to practice safe sex (which implies having multiple partners), or merely mention marriage as optional, but eHarmony has always been based upon finding marriage partners. Just because some use the system for what it was intended does not automatically mean the system itself is flawed (personally I think it is, but not for those reasons).
I am personally very saddened by this and is a textbook example of what happens when one tries to please both God and the World. If you asked Dr. Warren 10 years ago if he would ever create a website that would cater to gays he'd probably say, "Of course not!". Yet look at where we are today.
Some might wonder why eHarmony couldn't have won this legal battle when there are other sites that clearly "discriminate" as well (Christian sites, Jewish sites, Beautiful-people-only sites, etc). It could be that unlike other sites, it did not state its target audience upfront. Thus there is an implied agreement that it is non-discriminatory regardless. But I'm not a legal scholar so it might be for other reasons as well.
44. Bek said the following at 3:48 AM on Nov 21
To be honest, stories like this just make it hard for me to remember that most gay people are probably not bigoted and antagonistic. Yes, I believe that gay people should have access to public services, of course I do. It becomes more complicated when realistically people need access to private services too. But they HAVE access to dating websites. They HAVE access to places to have civil unions. They HAVE access to photographers who will photograph their celebration. They HAVE access to adoption services. Why do this? Why try to destroy the Church's way of life because they won't facilitate theirs, especially when they don't need the Church to facilitate it? What's wrong with agreeing to disagree?
45. Amir Larijani said the following at 4:54 AM on Nov 21
I guess the big winner in this case is going to be Christian Cafe.
46. Amir Larijani said the following at 5:03 AM on Nov 21
J Tucker says:
If gay marriage is recognized as a civil right in a "landmark" Supreme Court decision, then churches can be forced to marry gays, and accept gay couples into their fellowships on a the condition of maintaining their tax-advantaged status.
If you let the State define an institution, then everyone subject to the State can be forced to accept that definition.
47. Anna said the following at 5:24 AM on Nov 21
#11, LouiseInPA:
I'm an American expat living in Switzerland, and want to point out that churches in Europe don't perform civil marriages because they CAN'T -- they have no legal standing to do so. It has nothing to do with same-sex marriage.
The legal validity of a marriage in most European countries is based on a civil ceremony performed by a representative of the government, similar to American marriages performed by Justices of the Peace. It's usually done with minimal fanfare and is simply a legal transaction. After this ceremony the couple is legally married, and any religious ceremony that follows is optional and strictly symbolic.
So churches, Catholic or otherwise, can certainly choose not to perform ceremonies for same-sex couples, but it really doesn't matter from a legal standpoint since religious ceremonies aren't legally binding anyway.
48. LouiseinPA said the following at 6:11 AM on Nov 21
BDBD #38, that's exactly what has happened in Western Europe. Many churches are faced with the choice to marry both gay and straight couples or they will lose their tax exempt status-which would not permit the churches to even survive much less thrive. In Ocean Grove, the Camp Meeting (a methodist affiliated organization) had to pay taxes on the pavilion which they hadn't before because of their refusal to marry gay couples. Also, I agree that even if religious organization win the court battles (which they may in the end), the cost and fallout of the battle may end up doing a lot of harm. That's my biggest concern really because I don't think the Us gov will even make churches marry gay couples because of the constitution but churches may lose other tax breaks and favorable laws in the future....
49. Jo said the following at 6:14 AM on Nov 21
pass the ammunition #37 -
That's still not the point. If I own a clothes store, can I be sued by a male transvestite because I don't make women's shoes in his size? Or as someone else said, can a vegetarian restaurant be sued for discriminating against meat-eaters? eHarmony is selling a service to anyone who chooses to buy it. Gay people are not discriminated against, they are offered the exact same service as everyone else. Obviously, it's not a service they want, but how is that eHarmony's problem? It would make just as much sense to sue eHarmony for refusing to sell me a pineapple.
The idea of trying to force a commercial company to cater for your particular desires, especially when there are already tons of other companies that offer exactly what you require, is crazy.
50. Christina (in green) said the following at 7:49 AM on Nov 21
BDB -
Just to give you some justification ;)
Its possible that the dioceses would eventually end up following the national episcopal convention sheerly from the education of its future priests and bishops.
For now, I hope the bishops of those two dioceses dont go anywhere too soon because I've already seen evidence of young associate pastors buying into the national convention's beliefs.
51. EconNicole said the following at 7:53 AM on Nov 21
I believe they should have fought it wholeheartedly. That said, a settlement doesn't leave a legal precendent for other cases to use against other organizations with similar rules at least. So that is at least one good outcome for this. It leaves me very disapointed in eharmony as a company. Certainly takes away from their basics -- we are about building strong marriages. Yeah, right. They are only about the bottom line. It is sad when you can't put principle over your bottom line.
By the way, the NJ attorney general actually stepped in to broker this deal -- which to me means very likely the case would not have been found in eHarmony's favor.
J. Tucker -
No, that is true currently.In many western european countries it is true though. I wonder at times how far we are behind that. I think that the 1st ammendment could certainly be reinterpretted (especially depending on how the makeup of the court could change in the next few years) in such a way as to state that churches can't refuse to marry same sex couples. Recently "gay" has become the new "black" as I've seen some articles entitled. A church can't refuse to marry a black couple -- and why would they. At one point in time I imagine there were misguided churches who did just that though. While I think these issues are two VERY different things, some people don't seem to anymore. See CA and the court battle they are undertaking despite the voters having spoken.
52. Mike said the following at 8:02 AM on Nov 21
The lawsuit strategy has proven to be effective simply because it is cheaper, in the long run, to settle than to fight it out. You can get out for maybe 10% - 20% of what you would pay in legal fees by settling. Since the plaintiff doesn't pay anything if he loses - the lawyer takes his fee as a percentage of the settlement or the award - he loses nothing by continuing to sue, sue, sue. The company, on the other hand, has lots to lose. Even if they win, even if the lawsuit is completely frivolous, they can still lose millions defending themselves.
Hence the need for tort reform. But, since politicians are mostly lawyers, it's unlikely you'll see any...especially with the incoming administration.
53. Mike said the following at 8:07 AM on Nov 21
Oh, and on the subject of the First Amendment protecting churches against having to perform same-sex marriages: Not if "hate crimes" legislation is passed. It is, in theory, possible for a church or pastor to be charged criminally for a "hate crime" for refusing such a service to a gay couple. It has happened in other countries with similar legislation.
Don't count on it not happening here.
54. A. Marie said the following at 8:44 AM on Nov 21
First- in the title, do you mean "facilitate?" I have never heard of homosexual relationships "precipitating" from the sky like rain.
Second: I never did care what E-Harmony did. Just because the founder of a company is a professing Christian, does not mean that the company will follow suit. Christian business owners are treated differently, held to a different standard. Why is this? Sure, ethics, religious beliefs hold some sway in decision- making; ultimately, the company has to profit. This decision did not surprise me at all. To me, this was the equivalent of saying, "oh, alright..." They essentially broadened their customer base- the staunchly religious may abandon the site, but a wider secular base just may become the majority.
Third: I do not believe that the election of Barack Obama will lead to the ruin of this nation- unless God wills it. I believe in a supreme, sovereign God- and I refuse to engage in talking of doom and ruin. (I'm not saying this just because I voted for the man. ;-) )
55. Rob said the following at 10:05 AM on Nov 21
This news is appalling! I hope and pray that many current eHarmony users will choose to leave this dating service and many will choose to avoid it. Why Neil Clark Warren? Just like Pilot- you gave into the people. You fear man more than you fear God. I realize that we will be facing serious persecution (as Believers in Jesus Christ) from the opposite side for what we believe in is the Truth-- but we must fight in the Name of Jesus Christ!
I am so sad for Dr. Warren and his decision. Really sad-- :0(
56. Bek said the following at 11:21 AM on Nov 21
A lot of people are posting about western european churches having all kinds of problems over gay marriages and I have to ask - where is this information coming from? Can you please cite me a source? The reason I ask is that I am from the UK and civil unions have been legal for about 2 years now and I haven't heard of any such issues here, or in other european countries with similar laws.
Someone already said that many religious wedding ceremonies aren't legally binding in western europe and In England there are certain things that have to be fulfilled for a religious ceremony to be legally binding.
57. BDB said the following at 11:35 AM on Nov 21
Ken (#42) is correct:
The 2000 case Boy Scouts of America vs. Dale was a 5-4 decision.
Like he eHarmony case, it was based on a conflict with New Jersey law.
That relied on Roberts v. Jaycees which appears to be 7-0 for some parts and 6-1 for a different part.
Here is the official Scouting position on the United Way.
58. Kim said the following at 11:40 AM on Nov 21
Re: Bek #44
You said: "But they HAVE access to dating websites. They HAVE access to places to have civil unions. They HAVE access to photographers who will photograph their celebration. They HAVE access to adoption services."
That's the same argument that was used for "separate but equal" before the civil rights movement. "They (black people) have schools, they have water fountains, they have their own restaurants, etc."
Gay men and women are simply asking for equality under the law. In what ways does that threaten the "Church's way of life?"
Further, churches in almost all European countries CANNOT legally marry anyone. Legal marriages are performed by the state and people choose to have optional religiously symbolic services.
59. rushncap said the following at 12:00 PM on Nov 21
I'm sorry, BDB, are you saying that the stock market is going down because of Obama's election win? Are you for real??
Yes, the country is going to turn more liberal. Thankfully. It turned far more conservative over the past 8 years, and we all see the results now. Economy has been ravaged, a major U.S. city sunk without so much as a peep, our allies hate us almost as much as our enemies, and the President has the 2nd lowest approval rating in history. And that's just the tip of the iceberg. Don't you figure that if going one way lead to disaster maybe we should try going the opposite way for a change and see if it works?
The lawsuits have to do with minutia of the law. I have no doubt in my mind that if Prop. 8 failed, the other side would sue in a blink of an eye. ACLJ would make sure of that.
60. Brian K said the following at 12:01 PM on Nov 21
I had read the comment here as well as the previous thread on the subject. Varying takes on it, but essentially the comment is “This is a business, so what Dr. NCW did was business-related.” There are varying levels and takes on that, but that’s the gist. That’s a very disheartening view. This isn’t simply a professing Christian who provides a product (service, company, etc.) that another person is then using to purposefully sin*. This is someone now providing a service to promote that sin. It’s the equivalent of a Christian movie distributor settling and agreeing to distribute pornographic films. I can’t help but think of Daniel putting his job with Darius on the line (oh, and his life, too) in a similar situation.
Actually, it never is strictly a business decision. God is always involved and at the center.
* - To that end, if it were, the person would have to at least take measure of what they were doing. That wouldn’t be so cut and dry.
61. IMO said the following at 12:30 PM on Nov 21
rushncap--actually it's been kind of liberal these past 8 years...maybe not as liberal as it will be now...but don't start thinking that the past 8 years it was all "conservative." not even close.
62. IMO said the following at 12:43 PM on Nov 21
Kim, purely from a Biblical viewpoint [not really trying to get into any political arguments here at the moment], homosexual acts are sin. Being black is not a sin. IMO, it's wrong to compare these two groups.
63. dasiopa said the following at 12:44 PM on Nov 21
Holly (#17) and Brian (#60),
I think the principle in this passage applies.
64. BDB said the following at 12:55 PM on Nov 21
rushncap (#59) wrote:
>>I'm sorry, BDB, are you saying that the stock market is going down because of Obama's election win? Are you for real??<<
I'm hardly the only one saying it. Something like 70% of voters believe Obama will raise taxes, despite his campaign promises to the contrary.
There is a widespread belief in the business community that the current leadership of the Democratic party is hostile to business, and intends to impose new regulations that make business less profitable. Less profits=less value for stockholders=people sell their stock=lower stock price. This is also why commodity prices are dropping through the floor: worldwide economic slowdown. The Great Depression was caused by protectionist policies implemented by various countries, restricting trade. A bunch of protectionists just got elected. Ergo, it is reasonable to assume that they will again follow the same kind of wrongheaded policies, make trade more difficult, and prolong the slowdown. Slower economic conditions = less need for commodities like oil, steel, concrete, etc.
The fact that Democratic Rep. Waxman managed to force out the more business-friendly Democratic Rep. Dingell for the chairmanship of the Energy and Commerce Committee is the first evidence of the Democratic party's shift away from creating jobs.
I'm not sure you realize how serious the proposed global-warming legislation is. It will create huge job losses because it will make CO2 more expensive. Every form of energy, except wind and hydroelectric, creates CO2. Make it more expensive, and you make energy more expensive. Make energy more expensive, and you make every economic activiy more expensive - from delivering products bought online to driving your kids to school. You get inflation with zero benefits - stagflation like we had in the 1970's under the Carter administration is not unreasonable to expect.
>>Don't you figure that if going one way lead to disaster maybe we should try going the opposite way for a change and see if it works?<<
In a way, you illustrate my point. You don't seem to have a historical perspective that goes back any further than 2004, however.
Sure, I think the Republican party governed poorly and ran a poor campaign. They forgot why they were elected in 1994. They lost.
Reagan won in 1980 because the Democrats, who controlled congress and the presidency, failed to fix the problem.
Republicans won in 1994 in part because the Clinton administration and the fully Democratic congress in 1992-1994 went whole hog on a bunch of bad legislation. The country realized it was a bad idea to have both the presidency and congress in the same hands, and gave congress to the other party in 1994. Same thing happened in 2006.
I see no evidence that the Democratic party has learned from it's 1992-1994 experience. I expect them to overreach. And, if the Republican party gets it's act together, 2010 might be a good year for them.
65. Christina (in green) said the following at 12:59 PM on Nov 21
I'm sorry, BDB, are you saying that the stock market is going down because of Obama's election win?
So all those points lost the day after the win was no coincidence?
There really is some logical reason to think that Obama's win had a causal affect on the stock market decline after the election.
As I understand, there was a brief recovery (somewhat) prior to the election that just dropped afterwards.
And the logical reason for it? Obama's "redistribution of wealth" politics may have scared enough rich business men to pull their money out of their respective places to essentially "hide" it until this is over.
from what I understand, obama can't put in place any "back taxes" on income already recieved. Only on future earnings. Right? So make those future earnings less by pullng out your profits now before such tax policies take place...(As I understand it, back taxes are only subjected to the tax policy of that year...)
Kinda makes sense, right?
66. Bek said the following at 2:07 PM on Nov 21
Kim - you make a good point about the civil rights movement. But at the same time, forcing private businesses to go against their morals or go out of business doesn't seem very democratic either. I don't know where the line should be drawn.
In terms of civil marriages being the legally binding thing - yes, I imagine it would be that way in a number of European countries. I think I already mentioned that not all religious ceremonies in the UK (I'm British) are legally recognised. Personally, this isn't a problem to me, in fact, I think it's quite a welcome thing. Then again, I wasn't against civil unions, so maybe people here will disagree with me.
67. Pam said the following at 3:52 PM on Nov 21
I am shocked and sadden by this! I'm married (for 30 years) and obviously don't use a dating service (!), but many people do. There are many "catagorized" dating services (ones for gays, etc.). I don't get why one guy can sue over this, and win. But, of course, we don't know that he would have won because eHarmony settled. They should have stood up for what's Biblically correct, even if it cost them the company. And the gay guy should have just gone to another dating service! If I go to a store that doesn't sell what I want, I go elsewhere--I don't sue them! Guess I need to sue the nearest menswear store for not selling dresses---gender discrimination!!
68. Pam said the following at 4:21 PM on Nov 21
The Christian coffee shop owner scenario is an interesting one, BUT the big difference is the coffee shop's main point of being in business is not to "get couples together," possibly leading to marriage (hopefully!) Their main business is to serve coffee, donuts, pie, etc. And unless the atheist group or gay group identified themselves as such, a little nosy eavesdropping is the probably only way the coffee shop owner would know what they were talking about!
69. keruss said the following at 4:50 PM on Nov 21
I'm not suprised at all being that Jersey is as liberal as Cali. i don't blame eharmony at all on this. The planiff took them to court and they lost. It saddens me to see this as a conservative Republican. Liberal judges think they rewrite the law. Eharmony is a private company and do so as they please. heterosexuals should demand to use gay dating sites. It's the only fair thing to do.
70. J. Tucker said the following at 5:32 PM on Nov 21
I'm sorry, Amir (#46), but your statements are incorrect. Forcing a church to marry someone would be a violations of the entire First Amendment. Violation of freedom of speech, violation of freedom of religion, and violation of the establishment clause all in one foul swoop. No landmark decisions are going to change that.
And since all state constitutions have to grant citizens at least the same amount of rights as the U.S. Constitution, state governments aren't going to be able to force churches to do anything either.
This is a completely baseless fear.
A word about tex-exempt status. Churches will not loose this privilege because they refuse to do something against church doctrine. If churches ever lose the privilege, it will be because the church actively advocated for a political candidate or legislation.
71. rushncap said the following at 5:38 PM on Nov 21
IMO, other than your sheer statement, what evidence is there that the country has been "kind of liberal" for the past 8 years?? We've had the most ultra-conservative Prez in decades, 6 of the 8 years Republicans controlled Congress, we got 2 new Supremes, both of whom are very conservative... what am I missing?
72. marcel said the following at 7:32 PM on Nov 21
The US and Canada are slowly becoming
Sodom and Gomorrah.
73. Meghan said the following at 8:19 PM on Nov 21
I think its pretty sad that people cannot be tolerant of one another on this site. I grew up with two moms and they are the most wonderful people I have ever met. I am a Christian but its really hurtful to hear everyone talking like gay people are second class citizens. I know deep in my heart that you are gay from birth. I had a friend commit suicide when we were teens because he couldn't face his homosexuality. He tried so hard to force himself to be "straight" but it didnt work. He just wasnt attracted to women no matter how hard he tried. It is so sad that holier than thou folks like some of you cause others to hate themselves so much! If it were a choice to be gay.. no one would chose to be!! It's that simple.
I do however this this lawsuit is rediculous. If eHarmony wants to just advertise heterosexual relationship then let them. There are plenty of other sites that cater to all different types of lifestyles.
74. Stefanie said the following at 9:12 PM on Nov 21
People are talking like God is not in control of the world anymore. Stop being dismayed at the state of the world. The world is fallen. It's not supposed to be godly.
All this discussion makes me think God is pruning his churches. For too long too many people calling themselves "christians" have been living just like the world. Why are divorce and premarital sex statistics among religious people just the same as in the world?
The current state of things is forcing real Christians to have to take a stand. I think God knows what he's doing. Those on the side of truth need to practice civil disobedience regardless of the legal consequences.
Trust God! He's put you in this time and place for a reason. Stop running around like scared little rabbits. You get to join the ranks of those who actually have to sacrifice something to follow Christ!
75. Tom Neven said the following at 9:13 PM on Nov 21
Anna (#47)
Yes, what you say is true. I was married in Switzerland, and the only legal ceremony they would recognize is the one with the mayor of the groom's town, Grand-Saconnex, in my case. Our legal wedding certificate is signed by the mayor. (It was 28 years ago this month, by the way!)
We had the church wedding the next day in a little country church near Bellevue. It snowed overnight and we had almost a foot of snow on the ground. I had to shovel the church steps before the ceremony because no one else would.
I like to tell people I've been married twice--to the same person ... in two days!
76. Emily said the following at 10:04 PM on Nov 21
Anyone here familiar with ChristianMingle.com? I recommend it.
77. Jonathan said the following at 2:52 AM on Nov 22
SO what's the point of this discussion
how does it relate to being Christ-like, maybe that's not important.
maybe we should try loving people,
all of them, and not labeling them as them vs. us
hmm, I wonder, what would Jesus do?
maybe instead of protesting people, we could love them
maybe we could love our spouses and families since these marriages of Christians are what have fallen apart, these broken families they create are from a country that professes to be so Christian.
maybe it is not 'them' who are the problem.
Let's not be bigoted, that's the way Christians are seen.
What about love, what about showing it, not the preaching and condemning; I thought Christ loved the people the culture looked down on.
so what's the point here [I ask rhetorically]?
Is this what Jesus would do?
"Lord Save Us From Your Followers" got me thinking
78. Jason said the following at 9:58 AM on Nov 22
How did this even get into the courts in the first place? Is there a law saying all online dating services must accommodate every type of relationship? That guy didn't have to use eHarmony; ha, my favorite part is how the article says "...he is CONSIDERING using the new site...".
keep praying =\
79. Tom said the following at 10:11 AM on Nov 22
From a business standpoint, it makes perfect sense: expand your marketing options while avoiding costly litigation and admitting no liability. It could end up being a profitable move for eHarmony.
Since eHarmony isn't an exclusively "Christian dating service", I don't see any moral dilemma, irrespective of the faith of the founder.
80. Hannah C. said the following at 11:51 AM on Nov 22
Kim (#58):
Water fountains and schools are both (for the most part) public, meaning that the government is involved. Restaurants are a bit more picky - but I've yet to hear of any restaurant refusing to serve gays.
Dating websites and photographers are both private businesses. If a photographer doesn't want to photograph something they shouldn't be forced to. And there are a ridiculous amount of dating websites, so there's no need to sue one for heterosexual couples specifically. It's not "separate but equal"; it's one dating website, which is a private business, saying "these are the people we are trying to reach." That's like suing Mother's Day Out for not being Father's Day Out.
I don't know about adoption services..but there are many adoption companies. There are probably adoption companies only for Christians. Should non-Christians sue because they aren't allowed to adopt at that specific adoption agency?
Civil unions is the only place where separate but equal is valid - and even then..it's a matter of terminology aside from the whole "not recognized on the federal level" thing. What straight couples have is a civil union, and they may or may not have a religious union. It's just called marriage instead of civil union.
81. John said the following at 1:31 PM on Nov 22
"Third: I do not believe that the election of Barack Obama will lead to the ruin of this nation- unless God wills it. I believe in a supreme, sovereign God- and I refuse to engage in talking of doom and ruin. (I'm not saying this just because I voted for the man. ;-) )"
God is sovereign, that doesn't mean he has to "will" a nation into ruin for it to drive itself that way.
Kim,
You, like others who so do, are using a disgusting argument by equating the beautiful skin color of people made by God to perverted sexual behavior.
You should be ashamed.
How ridiculous and awful would it be to confer prefered legal status to individuals based on people's perverted sexual behaviors?
Amazing that such is happening in Western Civilization.
82. Linda said the following at 2:17 PM on Nov 22
My sense about E-Harmony is that its leadership has forgotten it's First Love and has run off after the temporal gains this world seems to offer. I pray that the leadership will reconsider, pull out of operations in NJ, and remain supported by Christians like me, who are seeking a compatible mate-in-Christ. If not, is it possible that other committed Christians, like myself, will quit E-harmony and actively support others in doing so? There is a larger battle here, Mr. Warren, and I pray you see your way to the battlefield and find yourself on the right side of the line drawn in the sand by the powers that be in this world.
LAS
83. Sophia said the following at 8:07 PM on Nov 22
Does eHarmony have a clause in their Terms & Agreement that says that straight couples agree to not have pre-marital sex?
There's plenty of ways to be sinful without being gay, and we shouldn't forget that. I'm sure it's not totally out of line to say that not every couple brought together by eHarmony has abstained until their marriage night.
And, on the other end of the spectrum, there ARE abstinent gay couples. Some remain celibate for their lifetime, while others wait until they can be "married." I'm not saying it's any more right, but we should be careful not to paint a broad generalization without looking deeper into the reality of the situation.
84. Tim said the following at 1:15 PM on Nov 23
I can't believe our legal system today. Even setting aside for a moment the sinfulness of homosexuality as an issue, this settlement had no legitimate legal basis.
Getting down to the basics, eHarmony is a company that sells a product. But you don't sue a company because they don't sell a product that you want! If Best Buy doesn't have the tv i'm looking for, I don't sue Best Buy, I go look somewhere else.
Similarly, if eHarmony doesn't provide the service Mr. McKinley wanted, he should find another site. And eHarmony should be embarrassed for having no backbone to stand up to a man with no case.
The fact that legal decisions are being made in the courts of this country that have nothing to do with the law and everything to do with emotion and social pressure is a disturbing sign.
85. Edwin Rivera said the following at 1:17 PM on Nov 23
Those were shocking news when I heard that! Ohhh well, what is this world coming to? END TIMES! I just really wonder if the Christian community will step up to the plate and stop or continue to support them for ads on magazines and so forth. It's really sad news altogether...period!
86. Mary said the following at 2:15 PM on Nov 23
The lawsuit was a set up from the begining. The leftwing lawyers are very familiar with the lawyer/judge network. The lawyer will just wait till their is a sympathtic leftwing judge and then file the lawsuit on the days that the leftist judge has an opening on his schedule. There is even a term for this, it is called judge shopping. This is the underhanded trick that the ACLU has been using for many years. They know from the onset that they will win because the judge is a leftwinger too.
87. IMO said the following at 9:29 AM on Nov 24
Hi rushncap-
The most current example is the bailout. True conservatives are against it.
Even liberals are saying how the GOP has to figure out how they are going to be....because the GOP is more middle-to-liberal nowadays then ever before..
As for me, I'm not aligned with one party or another. I strive to align my viewpoints to Scripture and my allegiance is to Jesus Christ, my Lord. So please don't think I hold either party up to par on anything.
All I'm saying is that the GOP and Bush are not conservative on most issues now a days. I can pull up lots of articles supporting what I am saying. Please let me know if you want me to do this. Or if somebody else wants to chime in and 2nd what I say, please do.
88. Adam said the following at 10:11 AM on Nov 24
(Canadian) Andrew R,
The one between a man and a menstrating woman? (Lev. 18:19)
What gives you the idea that the law of God is going to arrange all the ceremonial laws in one area, all of the penal laws in one area, and all of the moral laws in one area? Such is simply rediculious. Leviticus 18 has all three kinds of laws having to do with sexual relations.
Now, showing that 18:19 is ceremonial in character is not hard. The specific Hebrew term tame' is used here, which is generally used throughout the law for ceremonial impurity. Hence, there is no question that this is a ceremonial law.
However, there is a different word used for homosexual relations in verse 22, and that is to'eba. This is an extremely strong word, denoting extreme moral abhorrance.
Hence, the very language that is used should tell you that we are talking about different categories of law. Obviously, as the scriptures say, the ceremonial laws pointed ahead the the purity of Christ, and after you read the book of Hebrews, it should be clear as to the fact that these were a type of Christ [Hebrews 9:9-11].
Thus, there is no problem with recognizing the moral character of Leveticus 18:22, and recognizing that it is given as a moral law against the moral abhorance of homosexuality.
God Bless,
Adam
89. Amir Larijani said the following at 10:17 AM on Nov 24
J Tucker:
Baloney, and who said anything about "fear"? I hardly quake in my boots over this, as--being a libertarian--I honestly could care less what the State does about this matter.
On the other hand, stripping a Church--or other tax-advantaged organization--of tax-advantaged status, is hardly Constitutional breach.
After all, while the free exercise of religion is guaranteed by the Constitution, tax-advantaged status is not such a guaranteed right.
(One could argue a credible case that the income tax itself is unconstitutional, but discussion of that matter is beyond the scope of this thread.)
It's like the Second Amendment. I have the right to carry a firearm, and I even have a concealed carry permit in my state. (And yes...I do carry a firearm when I'm not at work or at church.)
On the other hand, my employer has every right to fire me if I carry my weapon into their building.
Why? Even though I have the constitutional right to carry a firearm, I do not have the constitutional right to compel my employer to keep me on the payroll.
90. Kim said the following at 1:05 PM on Nov 24
I don't want my tone to be read as confrontational or defensive, but I'd be interested in knowing how many people with strong opinions on this blog actually know and love a gay person or couple who hopes to get married?
91. IMO said the following at 2:42 PM on Nov 24
Kim,
How is your question relevant? I'm honestly confused.
Do you think that if I had a gay sister, I would be more willing to "accept" her gay relationship, when Scripture is clearly against it?
or
Do you think that if I had a gay sister, I would be ok with her using a website to search for a gay relationship?
See, I'm not sure where you are going with this.
Just because I love somebody who has a serious sin problem [insert sin here], doesn't mean I will overlook what Scripture says on it. I will not have more compassion on the sin.
Hmm I guess it doesn't answer your question...but there is definitely at least one Boundless author who has written and has answered your question.
Or maybe you are addressing those who condemn homosexual individuals. I am not one of those. So now, I definitely shouldn't be responding.
:-)
92. Adam said the following at 2:55 PM on Nov 24
Kim,
I don't want my tone to be read as confrontational or defensive, but I'd be interested in knowing how many people with strong opinions on this blog actually know and love a gay person or couple who hopes to get married?
And what relevance is that to whether or not the action of homosexuality is wrong? Could we not ask the question "How many people with strong opinions on this blog actually know and love a murderer who hopes murder someone?" Does that mean that, if I feel bad for someone who would like to murder someone else and cannot, that this therefore makes murdering someone moral? Of course not. Morality is independent of experience and feelings. Things are right and wrong universally, and cannot be deliniated by a persons feelings about someone else. Otherwise, the laws of morality use their universal character.
God Bless,
Adam
93. Adam said the following at 3:02 PM on Nov 24
I seriously doubt that the reason the stock market dropped the day after the election is because a Democrat was elected President.
Look at Clinton. He came into office when the DOW was around 3200. He left office when the DOW was about 10600. Businesses did fantastic under Clinton.
Part may be because of policies set up before him. Part was just the cycle of the market.
But given results like this, there is no way the market tanked because a Democrat was elected President.
94. Jo said the following at 3:20 PM on Nov 24
Kim:
My cousin is a lesbian and lives with her 'wife' (they have a civil union which is as close as a gay couple can get to marriage in the UK) and their baby son.
I disagree with her relationship, and I disagree very strongly with their decision to have a child. I also love my cousin and want the best for her. I understand and really feel for her over the very painful circumstances of her life that (I believe) have contributed to her present lifestyle.
Anyway, knowing her has probably made me a little more understanding and compassionate about the issues, but ultimately, disagreeing with her decisions and loving her anyway aren't mutually exclusive.
95. Bertha said the following at 5:17 PM on Nov 24
In response to #90, I have a few gay friends and relatives. They are hurting people and have found love and acceptance in the gay community. a couple of them were Christians at some point in their lives and I am sad to say that the church (myself included) failed to love them and help them through some difficult times in their lives. This does not make their lifestyle okay...it is still wrong, but they need Christ to understand that. Unfortunetly, the church (for the most part) tells them they need to change before they come back to the Church.
96. BDB said the following at 8:38 PM on Nov 24
Stefanie (#74) wrote:
>>Why are divorce and premarital sex statistics among religious people just the same as in the world? <<
Because when they take a survey, they allow people to self-identify. Many people say they are "Christian" because they live in America.
When you control for things like church attendance, the results are quite different. Regular church attenders (3+ times/month) havea much lower divorce rate.
97. BDB said the following at 8:41 PM on Nov 24
Jonathan (#77) wrote:
>>hmm, I wonder, what would Jesus do?<<
Call them brood of vipers?
Tell them to go and sin no more?
Tell them to repent of their sins?
Shake the dust off his sandals and tell them that their city will suffer worse than Sodom and Gomorroah for their lack of repentance?
Those all seem likely...
98. BDB said the following at 8:46 PM on Nov 24
IMO (#87) wrote:
>>Hi rushncap-
The most current example is the bailout. True conservatives are against it. <<
The main one is that Bush never vetoed a deficit-spending bill the whole time the Republicans were in control of Congress. A true conservative would have disciplined the spending of his own party.
99. BDB said the following at 8:51 PM on Nov 24
Kim (#90) wrote:
>>but I'd be interested in knowing how many people with strong opinions on this blog actually know and love a gay person or couple who hopes to get married?<<
I don't know any gay people planning to marry a person of the opposite gender.
I do know one who used the "Adam and Steve" dating service for a while but was apparently not happy with who he was matched with.
Sorry, don't have a link for that one. In fact, I haven't heard from that guy since I responded to his anti Prop 8 email by saying I was voting for it because it was the right thing to do.
I will tolerate civil unions because they were legitimately passed through the state legislature.
100. K. said the following at 10:59 PM on Nov 24
One option for Dr. Warren is to open the new site and fill it with information on Christianity, including why we believe the way we do about homosexuality. I'll bet the judge's decision didn't say that he can't evangelize on the new site.