How sad that yet another company has caved in to the intimidation of homosexual activists.
What's worse, the founder of this one--eHarmony.com--claims to be a Christian. Incidentally, I have no reason to believe Neil Clark Warren isn't a Christian...other than this compromise with evil. Anyone can make a mistake and compromise; I've unfortunately done so, and so have many others. But such a BIG compromise on such a BIG issue...
WorldNetDaily reports that homosexual activists filed a lawsuit against eHarmony.com for "discrimination" because the company wouldn't attempt to partner a homosexual with another homosexual.
If homosexual activists had a fraction of the "tolerance" they demand from others, they would leave this private business alone to operate as it chooses. But, as usual, that is totally insufficient for homosexual activists. The entire world must bend and bow to their will and totally accommodate their immoral and unhealthy lifestyle.
And rather than fight this immoral and unreasonable demand, eHarmony.com has caved in. In capitulating, they have agreed to match homosexuals (facilitating an immoral relationship), cough up $55,000, provide the suing homosexual with one year of free service, and provide free 6-month memberships to the first 10,000 homosexuals who register.
And since eHarmony admits up front that their goal is to help create relationships that culminate in marriage, then they must by default be participating in the ongoing attack on marriage by homosexual activists who seek to counterfeit marriage.
How low this once-honorable company has fallen. It has surrendered its principles and embraced an immoral and unhealthy sexual practice. And as an avowed Christian, Warren has brought dishonor and discredit on Christ himself.
What's more, I'm certain that homosexual activists are rejoicing at having intimidated yet another business into subservience to their agenda.
Featured Article
Thursday, November 20, 2008
eHarmony Caves to Homosexual Intimidation
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
18 comments:
"I have no reason to believe Neil Clark Warren isn't a Christian...other than this compromise with evil."
Evil? I'm glad you're finally giving your honest opinion about gay activists.
And for what it's worth, I do NOT agree with the gay community on this one.
I'm glad you don't agree with these activists. That's heartening.
On the question of evil, you're probably used to thinking of it in terms of someone like Hitler, or in the theatrical terms used to express it in movies, etc.
The dictionary defines "evil" as morally reprehensible, or arising from actual or imputed bad character or conduct. In theological terms, evil is any behavior which does not conform to the character of God. All of these definitions would apply to homosexual behavior, and the effort to coerce someone to commit an evil act.
When I use profanity, it is evil (and I did it yesterday, so that you know beyond a doubt that I don't live on top of an ivory tower). When I used to get drunk and sleep around, it was evil. As homosexual behavior is evil.
Although I don't support your use of language and logic here, I wholeheartedly agree that EHarmony should not be required to match gay couples.
1) Why would gay couples want to use a site that doesn't want them?
2) This is private company with a singular goal: match hetero couples so that they marry.
Want a surprise, Bob? My pinko self found the love of my life on EHarmony, and I'll be moving to the Midwest in the spring to join her and and my future step-children.
I agree with you that eharmony should be left to its own devices as far as what services it wants to offer to whom. I find it a bit ridiculous that a gay man was able to force eharmony to offer same sex pairings. However: I don't believe eharmony would have "caved", as you put it, unless they thought there was money to be made in offering its services to the gay community. Dr. Warren said in several interviews that he didn't know anything about gay relationships and didn't see how he could foster them. I think that's a fair and honest statement on his part. Since he seems to be giving it a go, I wonder what he's learned in the meantime, and where. And how much money is involved. Certainly more than $55,000 or he would have rolled the dice and gone to court.
Bearing that firmly in mind, now, let me tell you this: I'm a lesbian and I was married, by a Christian pastor, to my wife 13 years ago. There is nothing immoral or harmful about our relationship. You'd probably like us if you met us; we're pretty conservative on most issues (don't drink, do drugs or fool around), laugh a lot and have long discussions about the very kinds of issues you raise in your blog. Not all gay folks are the same. Some of us are your ordinary neigbors and friends.
You never cease to amaze me, Bob. As always, I wonder how willing you'd be to enter a room full of gay people and say that each and every one of them is evil.
You resemble the late (thankfully) Jerry Falwell a little more each day.
Congratulations, Colin! I'm glad you've found the love of your life.
Jen, I'm glad you see that eHarmony shouldn't have been coerced and intimidated into doing this.
However I have to correct you on something important. You are not married; only a man and a woman can marry. I have no doubt that this pastor told you that you were "married" but even he does not have the right to alter a fundamental human relationship and institution that God created for men and women. Only God knows whether he was a Christian (because only God can see the heart and knows whether this pastor has been born again), but it is clear that this pastor acted contrary to Christian doctrine and God's instructions.
It's good to hear for your sake that you're not caught up in drugs or alcohol as most in the homosexual community are. But before you pass into eternity I hope you come to understand that your sexual behavior is immoral and puts you at odds with God.
Thanks for reading.
cinemaphile85, so you're glad Jerry Falwell is dead. How tolerant and un-hateful of you.
Who said I was tolerant and un-hateful? Looks like I'm still clinging to some of my old Christian values! Trust me, if someone said that you personally helped to destroy the Twin Towers and murder 3,000 innocent people, you'd be a little upset too.
Who said that about who?
"I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way, all of them who have tried to secularize America. I point the finger in their face and say 'you helped this happen.'"
~ Jerry Falwell, speaking about the September 11 attacks on 'The 700 Club.' He later apologized, only to retract his apology shortly thereafter. Interestingly enough, Sarah Palin considers herself a feminist. Does that mean she's partly responsible for 9/11 too? How could you have voted for someone like her?! :-P
Among the late Reverend's other thoughts about the LGBT community:
"AIDS is not just God's punishment for homosexuals, it is God's punishment for the society that tolerates homosexuals." (Those African nations must be overwhelmingly tolerant of homosexuals, then.)
"Gay folks would just as soon kill you as look at you." (Maybe this explains all the religiously motivated violence against them?)
Regarding the Metropolitan Community Church (a gay-affirming denomination): "brute beasts . . . part of a vile and satanic system" that "will be utterly annihilated, and there will be a celebration in heaven."
Yes, I am glad he's dead.
I don't think that qualifies as "you personally helped to destroy the Twin Towers..." but thanks for making your views on tolerance clear.
Really? Why don't you think that? Explain how saying "I point the finger in their face and say, 'you helped this happen'" does not qualify as believing that homosexuals personally helped to destroy the Twin Towers.
As long as you're judging me for being intolerant, would you say that Jerry Falwell was tolerant toward homosexuals? Do you think his words indicate that he was loving and compassionate toward them? If your son or daughter turns out to be gay, would you tolerate a fellow Christian who said that they're a brute beast who would just as soon kill you as look at you? These are not very nice things to say, and I don't think anyone can honestly believe that gay people's anger toward Christians is unprovoked.
Oh, and notice how I made a comment about what someone said and then cited direct quotations from that person to back it up.
When I supported abortion, I "helped it happen" because I added my voice to those in our society to gave hearty approval to it, and I said nothing to dissuade my friends who chose to kill their own children. I "helped it happen" even though I didn't "personally" participate in the abortion or the decision to have one.
And to the best of my knowledge, Jerry Falwell never preached "tolerance" nor claimed to be "tolerant" as most homosexual activists claim.
Oh I see. Falwell must have been referring to some INDIRECT way in which two men kissing or holding hands made airplanes crash into skyscrapers. Too bad he's not around to clarify what he meant.
And you're right, he was not tolerant at all. It's a shame he held so much power and influence over the evangelical community, because I doubt many people challenged his hateful comments. After all, he did say that "Christians, like slaves and soldiers, ask no questions." That describes you fairly well too, I think.
Do you agree with Falwell that homosexuals helped bring about 9/11?
I don't think E-Harmony should have caved by any means. Sin is sin and they should have stuck up for morality and respected that a real match is one man and one woman. Their goal is to make lasting healthy relationships...and I don't see a homosexual couple as being a healthy relationship as it is contrary to God's laws and contrary to what the site wants.
If they insist on having their dating sites, they can create their own. The first 3 chapters of Romans says that God will give some over to a depraved mind and they will live in their sin and see judgment later.
A homosexual demanding a Christian dating site to allow this is like a white person demanding that the United Negro College Fund get a scholarship ready for them...it makes no sense.
Yes, I believe Falwell was referring to an indirect influence, and I'll tie that in with your third paragraph in a moment.
As to your second paragraph, no, Falwell was not "tolerant" just as I am not "tolerant" in the sense in which homosexual activists use the word. The dictionary defines tolerance as being "marked by forbearance or endurance," implying an unhappy willingness to allow something. The word "tolerate" itself has two basic defnitions: (1) to endure or resist the action of (as a drug or food) without serious side effects or discomfort and (2) to allow to be or to be done without prohibition, hindrance, or contradiction. Tolerance usually and traditionally means #1. Homosexuals insist it means #2. And #2 is something Christians cannot do because we know that homosexual behavior is immoral, unnatural and unhealthy. In fact, our society is "intolerant" of drug abuse and many other things. Hopefully even you can see that intolerance is a good thing when the behavior not being "tolerated" is a bad behavior.
As to whether homosexual behavior in some way helped bring about 911, that's a complex question that's hard to answer in anything remotely like I have time for--even verbally, much less by typing.
If it did, then many other sins joined it in helping bring about 911: our society's acceptance and tolerance of abortion, divorce, pornography, rebellion, theft, and pretty much every other sin that society has decided to embrace without judgment.
The reason I say this is that God has indicated in the Bible that when we live according to the ways he has told us we should live, we not only avoid the natural consequences of those actions, but that he also protects us from many other harms. Likewise, he has indicated that if we live in habitual disobedience, we will not only reap the consequences of our actions, but he'll take away what is commonly referred to as a "hedge" or "shield" or "umbrella" of protection--opening the door to dangers that he otherwise might protect us from.
It's a risky proposition to attribute God's direct hand (or even sinful actions, unless there is a direct cause/effect link) to an unpleasant event (which puts 911 in rather mild but general terms). Christ even. cautioned us against it while he walked the earth. While it's easy to place blame when there is a direct link (e.g. depression or infertility or any number of other maladies because of an abortion, or liver disease because of alcohol abuse, or STDs because of sex outside of marriage), assigning moral responsibility where no direct link between behavior and outcome is unwise because there are so many factors that come into play, and God likely weighs many of them differently, and none of us can know the mind of God. That doesn't mean that sinful behavior played no part in the overall outcome.
Having said that, I think there was probably some truth to what Falwell said, but I think he (and Pat Robertson, who I believe also said something similar) either overstepped himself, or should have clarified what he meant better.
Bob, you're right on track. Yes, we all fall short and are not able to resist pressure from evil way too often, I'm afraid. What makes Warren's siding with the dark so serious is the position of leadership he end up finding himself in. By his action, he made the homosexual force bolder than ever while making the pro-Bible front weaker. I don't know the man but it seems to me that when the time came for him to show his true face, money spoke louder. As if the God whom he claims to follow was not big enough to handle a NJ judge. Thanks for your post.
Post a Comment