Eharmony Couples

5/21/2022 admin

Married couples match by eHarmony have produced more than 100,000 babies. Experienced a 20% increase in members over the age of 60 in the first quarter of 2009 when compared to the same quarter in 2008. Since eHarmony UK launched in June 2008, they have had 500,000 people register on the site. Eharmony - a trusted online dating site for singles. Eharmony is the first service within the online dating industry to use a scientific approach to matching highly compatible singles. Eharmony's matching is based on using its 32 DIMENSIONS® model to match couples based on features of compatibility found in thousands of successful relationships. We have taken the guesswork out of the dating equation and created a unique process to match people based on things that matter most in long-term relationshi.

Joshua and Tanyalee Pearson are newlyweds in Redding, Calif., who met through the online dating service eHarmony and married 10 months later. The telegenic boutique owner and 'geeky chemist' have become the greatest TV commercial supercouple since Jared Fogle and a six-inch turkey sandwich.

Jared scares me, but after seeing their commercial hundreds of times I've become attached to Joshua and Tanyalee. They got married pretty quickly, but who am I to argue with 29 factors of compatibility? The eHarmony dating site is powered by romantic science.

Five questions are used to assess Dyadic Cohesion, including how often the couple laughs together, works together on a project, or has a stimulating exchange of ideas. Univariate Chi-square and ANOVA analyses indicated a significant benefit (p < .001) for having been introduced by eHarmony for all five of the measures used to assess Dyadic Cohesion, as well as for all 32 items comprising the entire DAS.

We didn't have Dyadic Cohesion back in my day. I met the missus at a kegger. She looked at me through the haze of beer goggles and it was love at impaired sight.

Given eHarmony's trouble in New Jersey over excluding gays from its service, it's interesting to see that Tanyalee has gone on the record in favor of California's Proposition 8:

Marriage is a biblical union under God that happens to be recognized by our government. It is not subject to amendments. I believe that it would be right of our government to offer some sort of union benefit to those who wish to join their lives in a same-sex union. However, this does not mean that the government has any right to step into the church and redefine 'marriage'. The separation between church and state is not to keep the beliefs of the church out of our governing systems. Instead is to keep the governing systems out of the church. ...

This is not about rights as a citizen of the United States of America. This is about whether we as a country have the audacity to ammend the Bible. 'Marriage' is not the term to be used in homosexual unions. This is not ever been defined in the Bible as such. Thus it is not the place or right of my government to change that. In order to keep separate as so many have suggested the church and the state, we must fundamentally re-examine the suggestions being purposed.

Leaving aside Tanyalee's completely back-asswards interpretation of the separation of church and state, I don't understand the impulse of some straight people to play 'tick-tock the game is locked' with marriage. Why should I care if a committed gay couple wants the benefits and burdens the state assigns to married people? eHarmony is now under legal agreement with the state of New Jersey to begin applying love cohesive to gays on a same-sex service called Compatible Partners. When they start churning out gay couples whose univariate Chi-square and ANOVA analyses indicate lifelong compatibility, shouldn't they get married and celebrate their happiness in heavily rotated television commercials? Gay people can't possibly screw up marriage any worse than heterosexuals. If the institution can survive quickie Vegas weddings, 35,000-couple Unification Church mass ceremonies and the union of Julia Roberts and Lyle Lovett, it can survive a couple with the same plumbing who'd like to file a joint tax return and share parental rights over their children.

Tanyalee takes a pretty hardline view on the issue, and given the fact that Joshua has an advanced degree in chemistry, I was concerned they might have only 28 favors of compatibility -- 60 percent of people with postgraduate degrees voted against Proposition 8, according to exit polls. But the only hero named on Joshua's MySpace profile is 'Jesus Christ my Lord and Savior and ultimate HERO, role model, and friend,' and he attends a church that prescreens applicants to its School of Supernatural Worship for the purpose of weeding out gays, cultists and practitioners of witchcraft:

Have you ever been involved in homosexuality or lesbianism?

If yes, how long since last involvement?

So Joshua and Tanyalee are in harmony on this issue, and thank God for that.

Update: After writing this, I heard from Tanyalee.

Comments

Tanyalee's completely back-asswards interpretation of the separation of church and state

What is your interpretation?

#1 · Jeremy · 2009/01/16

Little typo:
'Tanyalee has gone on the record against California's Proposition 8' should be 'Tanyalee has gone on the record in favor of California's Proposition 8'

#2 · Ben Tucker · 2009/01/16

Contrary to Tanyalee, the separation of church and state was intended to keep religion out of government as much as it was to keep government out of religion. As James Madison wrote, 'Religion flourishes in greater purity, without than with the aid of Govt.'

The problem I have with Proposition 8 and the other bans on gay marriage is that they expect the state to honor the same definition of marriage as prevalent religions. The secular institution of marriage should open its doors to all consenting adults who want to form these unions. Either that, or it should get out of marriage altogether and call everything it does civil unions, both for straight and gay couples.

#3 · Rogers Cadenhead · 2009/01/16

Thanks, Ben. I've fixed that typo.

#4 · Rogers Cadenhead · 2009/01/16

At its start 'in 2350 B.C. in Mesopotamia, marriage's primary purpose was to bind women to men, and thus guarantee that a man's children were truly his biological heirs. Through marriage, a woman became a man's property.'
www.islandmix.com

#5 · Brian · 2009/01/16

I agree, but which direction do you think is the most defunct in the separation?

#6 · Jeremy · 2009/01/16

HI Jeremey,

I can't speak for the writer of this article , however using logic as soon as the government made marriage involve their services, that moment is when the 'religious power' was taken away from marriage in our country, After the courts and US government got involved it was no longer under the power of the church.

Here is what he says ' However, this does not mean that the government has any right to step into the church and redefine 'marriage'.'

however what he and most ignorant christians don't understand is that the government has every right to do whatever they want with marriage since they co-opted it away from the church in the first place. Can you get legally recognized marriage with a preist in a church only? Nope ,you need to finalize the process with the courts.
Marriage in this country serves a NON RELIGIOUS function now, and most christians just need to suck it up and accept it. The whole anti gay marriage slant christians have is imo a last ditch desperation similar to a dying fish who is gasping for it's last breath of air before it perishes. Christians don't complain about any other forms of sexual 'perversions' going on on the Rupurt murdoch owned TV stations that their own children watch. This gay marriage issue i think most of them know deep down they have much bigger problems to contend with that have already effectively erased/destroyed the moral framework of their religion.

#7 · rob · 2009/01/16

'I believe that it would be right of our government to offer some sort of union benefit to those who wish to join their lives in a same-sex union. However, this does not mean that the government has any right to step into the church and redefine 'marriage'.'

Ignorant. Legalizing gay marriage would not mean that churches would be forced to perform gay marriages if it goes against their religious doctrine.

'The separation between church and state is not to keep the beliefs of the church out of our governing systems. Instead is to keep the governing systems out of the church.'

Ignorant. It's meant to do both.

'This is about whether we as a country have the audacity to ammend the Bible. 'Marriage' is not the term to be used in homosexual unions. This is not ever been defined in the Bible as such.'

Ignorant. Marriage has never been exclusively Judeo-christian.

In conclusion, this woman is an ignoramus.

#8 · JonasM · 2009/01/16

As I'm looking at this page now, the banner ad at the top is from 'MenInLove.com'. I'd have even more respect for you if you could tell me the ad wasn't purely random...

#9 · John · 2009/01/16

The Google works in mysterious ways, John. Ever since I posted this entry, my site's been raining MenInLove.Com. I don't have a hand in deciding the ads -- Google's computers decide -- but if my site gives any gays Dyadic Cohesion I want an invite to the wedding.

#10 · Rogers Cadenhead · 2009/01/16

Tanyalee is correct about the separation of church and state. It is only to keep the government our of the church and from declaring a state religion. The church cannot be separated from the state without disenfranchising it's members. A church members vote against gay marriage is just as valid as any vote for. The church is not an institution that has a vote, but a collection of citizens that all have the right to vote as the choose. All of our laws are base on morality regardless of agree or disagree with the Bible. A vote for gay marriage is vote based on one's moral view that it is 'right'.

#11 · Jeff · 2009/01/16

Sounds like this character would also make it illegal for non-Christians to get married if she could.

#12 · Ken Hagler · 2009/01/16

Ken i doubt that's her stance, but if that's what she believed its her right to vote that way. It's our job as citizens to decided where the line should be drawn for the definition of a marriage. The problem for gay marriage right now is that the majority of Americans have that line at one man and one woman of contenting age. It should be the responsibility of those that disagree to persuade enough citizens to change that majority.

#13 · Jeff · 2009/01/16

The point that's really being missed in the comments here is kudos to EHarmony, they've clearly managed to correctly connect one ignorant, closed-minded individual with another that's exactly like them, mission accomplished.

#14 · joe · 2009/01/16

Good point Joe, but you seem to be just as ignorant and closed-minded. Usually name calling and judgment reflect the issuer, because we tend to see others as behaving and reacting as ourselves. I have not seen anything here that shows they are closed-minded to debate, just that they have current stance on the topic, much like you apparently do.

#15 · Jeff · 2009/01/16

By the way ignorance is not an insult its a fact. Ignorance is only a problem when we are ignorant of our own ignorance, which usually leads to closed-mindedness.

#16 · Jeff · 2009/01/16

Jeff, your concept of the role of a majority vote in a republic is incorrect. The point of much of the constitution is to protect the minority from the majority. For example, if the majority were to vote that the Pentateuch become law in the United States, then it would still be forbidden because it's unconstitutional. Likewise, unless it can be argued that there is some non-religious reason to outlaw gay marriage, then doing so is also unconstitutional.

As it stands now, I have never heard any such argument. Therefore this looks to me to be a simple case of people trying to impose their religious views on others.

#17 · JonasM · 2009/01/16

This article and many responses are pathetic. So many people are lost.
Homosexuality is a violation of natural law you boneheads. Gay marriage is a further attempt to legitimize perverted behavior.

Fifty years in the livestock business has taught me that this perversion
does not exist or not observable to any degree in mammals similar to
ourselves. Logically, the difference between man and animal may explain
the apparent high degree of homosexuality in man vs none in animals.

I leave you to conclude that difference for yourself.

#18 · Gerry · 2009/01/16

Gerry, homosexuality in the animal kingdom is well documented, so your point is moot.

See for yourself: www.youtube.com

#19 · JonasM · 2009/01/16

'homosexuality in the animal kingdom is well documented'

So are ducks doing it with the dead.

Doesn't make that right either,

#20 · manamana · 2009/01/16

What is funny is that these 2 bozo's opinions are even being heard. Somebody gets their 15 minutes of fame and decide to proclaim that some people don't deserve equality. That sure says a lot about them. One day gay people will be able to marry and this whole stupid debate will be looked back on as a joke. People are starving, there are all these injustices in the world, and this is what morons fight about.

#21 · CoreyAdam · 2009/01/17

Manamana, my comment was meant to refute the notion that homosexuality is unnatural, as Gerry argued.

If you think it's wrong then why do you think so?

#22 · JonasM · 2009/01/17

Rogers, why do you give a shit about gay marriage, or even more important, why do you give a shit what other people think about gay marraige?

By most estimations, 2-3% of humans consider themselves gay, a tiny minority of people. Why should they impose their beliefs on the other 96-97%?

I personally could care less if they marry or not, but I have never understood people who are 'straight' who spend one second thinking about it in either direction.

Guess it's just a pavlovian knee jerk reaction to a cause you think is liberally oriented.

#23 · Rex · 2009/01/17

# 14 joe 2009-01-16 03:27 PM link

And I love this, anyone that doesn't think like 'joe' is an ignorant close minded individual, but joe is somehow 'open minded' values and opinions that differ from his own.....

Nice, liberalism at it's finest.

#24 · Rex · 2009/01/17

Rogers, why do you give a shit about gay marriage, or even more important, why do you give a shit what other people think about gay marraige?

I care about gay marriage for the same reason I care about miranda rights, capital punishment, racial profiling and any number of things that don't affect me directly. To form a more perfect union.

#25 · Rogers Cadenhead · 2009/01/17

So I take it, San Fransico is your idea of a more perfect union.

The question was, why do you care what other people feel about the subject?

An individual has a right to hold relgious and moral beliefs that are different from your own.

I've never seen the commercial and I have no idea who the people are in it, but are you saying that in your version of a 'more perfect union', radical minority positions should take precedent over the majority?

Or just your radical minority positions?

#26 · Rex · 2009/01/17

How exactly are gay advocates 'imposing' their views on the majority of Americans by endorsing gay marriage? The answer is: they aren't. The majority -- you and yours -- can continue to define marriage any way you like. Indeed, there are already many different views of marriage. Some see it as a sacred bond, others a financial arrangement, and still others as a status tool.

Gays simply want the ability to enter into the same legal arrangements as straight people. That's not imposing their views on the majority any more than Sarah Palin's decision to force her daughter to marry 'imposes' her views on me.

So let's dispense with that fallacy once and for all.

The reason people oppose gay marriage is that it offends their personal religious views, period. End. That's it. And whether you think religion is ridiculous or not (full disclosure: I do), that is not a valid reason to outlaw gay marriage.

#27 · moretroops · 2009/01/17

You can define marriage any way you like outside of government, Rex. No one is challenging your right to hold religious and moral beliefs against homosexuality. But when the government has a role in recognizing marriage, it should be unconstitutional to grant rights to heterosexual couples and deny them to homosexual couples. It's not the government's role to reinforce your religious and moral beliefs.

#28 · Rogers Cadenhead · 2009/01/17

I don't hold religious or moral beliefs against gay marraige.

The question is why the minority has the right to impose their views on the majority.

Marriage has always been defined legally as one man and one woman, you may think that is wrong, you have a right to, but others have the right to hold a different viewpoint and in a democracy, the majority rules.

This woman holds religious beliefs that jibe with the majority and the current laws but she is being a called a intolerant bigot for her beliefs.

So who is the intolerant bigot here, the person who holds the majority viewpoint or the radical minority trying to impose their moral agenda?

#29 · Rex · 2009/01/17

It is ironic that Joel says he wants to 'cum on Jesus' on his myspace page.

Maybe there are some latent tendencies there.

#30 · Rex · 2009/01/17

So in Rex's world, Jim Crow laws should have been upheld because the majority (white) viewpoint at the time was that whites should have rights that blacks shouldn't.

It was only a matter of time until Rex showed his true stripes.

#31 · anon · 2009/01/18

Rex says 'Marriage has always been defined legally as one man and one woman.'

Actually, in most states it's never been defined at all. It's only now that non-heteros are trying to get hitched that states are hurriedly trying to define it.

And in at least two states it's specifically defined as 'two people' and not 'one man and one woman.'

We, in fact, don't live in a 'majority rules' country. The Founders wisely wrote the Bill Of Rights exists to prevent un-Constitutional laws passed by majorities that would infringe on the human rights of minorities.

Our ugly past filled with Jim Crow laws, alien & sedition acts, Japanese internment camps and so on were a result of Supreme Courts who did not acknowledge that the Bill Of Rights supersedes Jim Crow laws and Executives who would not enforce the Bill of Rights over un-Constitutional laws.

This gay stuff is 100% analogous with the laws that kept blacks & whites from marrying until the 2nd half of the 20th Century and that were eventually overturned as being anti-Bill of RIghts.

All, no matter race, creed color, gender or sexual orientation are entitled to equal rights under our Constitution to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. The Bill of Rights in that Constitution supersedes any minority-restricting law that any State Congress can devise.

#32 · samiam · 2009/01/18

Homosexuality in the animal kingdom is NOT well-documented. The people who made the referenced video either have an agenda or are ignorant of
animal sexual behavior. Since it was Nat. Geo., I'll buy the former.

There is a great difference between homosexual behavior (supposedly
documented in the video) and homosexual orientation. Heterosexual humans
in prison perform homosexual acts but they are not homosexual. The key
consideration is whether or not they have a choice.

In the video, note the responses of those animals that are the recipients of the sexual advances of another. The Hyena and the Zebra are good examples. Their displeasure is obvious.
Sorry Jonasm, but the video is a real con job.

Homosexuality is abnormal and unnatural. Marriage is an effort to legitimize it.

#33 · Gerry · 2009/01/18

Eharmony Married Couples

Rogers, I left a post for Tanyalee, telling her she should read the thread here and respond.

Now you can hear it from the horse mouth. (so to speak)

Best to settle things face to face as it were.

#34 · Rex · 2009/01/19

Gerry, the video is just a shorthand. There are many articles appearing in peer-reviewed scientific journals documenting homosexual behavior in animals. Indeed, in some cases this behavior is prevalent enough that you would have to call it an orientation (take for example Bonobos, the majority of whom would be classified as bisexual.)

If there is any evidence that National Geographic, along with the rest of these researchers are involved in a conspiracy or otherwise have an agenda to make it seem like homosexuality exists in nature, you have yet to present it.

Finally, even if there weren't any other species that engage in homosexual behavior, it would still be natural for humans. Homosexuality in humans has existed for all of recorded history and so it is very likely that humans have always engaged in homosexual behavior. Homosexuality is therefore natural for humans by definition.

#35 · JonasM · 2009/01/19

Ceratinly homosexuality is part of the sexual nature of all animals and even some plants.

But so is pedophilia, necrophilia, and bestiality.

Oops.

#36 · Rex · 2009/01/19

Rex, as I've already said, I'm specifically refuting the argument that homosexuality is wrong because it's unnatural. Not arguing that because it's natural that makes it moral.

Oops.

However, I don't see what's wrong with it since the people involved are consenting adults and it doesn't hurt anyone.

#37 · JonasM · 2009/01/19

How can people be so blind? Gay marriage would be the best thing that ever happened to the economy and the world of reality television. Say it with me: Gay Divorce Court.

#38 · Uncle Mikey · 2009/01/19

The 'ignorance' stems from the inability of those who think of themselves as 'liberals' to acknowledge reality.

The reality, since whatever 'creation' your collectively made-up minds can understand, or stoop to acknowledge in the abstract, is that heterosexual 'marriage' is a natural state - extensively demonstrated in our environment; from plants to animals.

Of course, the term 'marriage' in whatever language, is only an attempt to provide recognition of the reality, whether by religion or the state, that the *process* is to provide children for the future of human life and as an example to those future adults for how a 'family' works to the best advantage. That 'good' example benefits the state and justifies religion's support of the institution.

Having said that, it is apparent that nature has also provided an exception-to-the-rule, an outlet for the genetically weak and hopelessley vulnerable in soothing their inherent frustrations over failing in competition to procreate. This natural outlet, homosexual mutual masturbation, should be recognized by the state, and any church which feels it necessary to promote this natural form of playing-house. Indeed, these poor people might benefit from state help in treating their otherwise endangered health; both physical and mental; along with partnership benefits such as inheretance, visiting the sick, insurance, etc., and as they already can be officially recongized under our Republic's partnership laws.

However, this lifestyle is not one which is a good example for managing and promoting our future generations, and of course should not be allowed some 'right' to provide such a negative example of what nature has intended in promoting Life - not some invented one which 'officially' acknowledges whatever activity an individual, parnership, team, or animal uses and which allows them orgasmic relief.

Indeed, and notwithstanding the outright exaggerations concerning the figure, homosexuality is still a prectice of less than 3% of the human population. This small minority of those practicing fruitless mutual masturabation don't deserve any invented (read: lied about) 'right' to become examples of that practice. No matter how often they parade in public with their genitals hanging out of leather jockstraps ...

#39 · tadowe · 2009/01/21

Ugh, I knew I hated this couple the minute I saw them on TV. MY GAY TV, in MY HOUSE. FUCK YOU JOSH AND TANYLEE. Go to fucking hell and have a threeway with Satan you asshole cunts.

#40 · Jason · 2009/01/21

A threeway with Satan would actually probably be really awesome.

#41 · anon · 2009/01/21

This thread is so gay.

#42 · samiam · 2009/01/22

'Leaving aside Tanyalee's completely back-asswards interpretation of the separation of church and state,'

It's not incorrect. Madison made the argument in 1788, during the Federalist/Anti-Federalist debates - the separation of church and state is important to protect the church.

Catholic thinkers, and certainly Catholic leaders, were especially aware of this line reasoning all through the 1700s and 1800s. Because America was majority Protestant, most of the time a government intervention in religious matters was an anti-Catholic intervention. To give just one example, between 1830 and 1880 (as more Irish moved to America) nearly every Southern state outlawed K-12 private schools. At that time, in the South, a 'private' school was a Catholic school. For all intents and purposes, the public schools were Protestant schools. So when the government took a stand effecting religion, it was for an anti-Catholic purpose.

At least till the modern era of civil rights, the Catholics used to be strong supporters of the separation of Church and State, exactly because they were aware of this history.

However, I agree that Tanyalee's reasoning is flawed - marriage is a state matter and has nothing to do with religion.

#43 · Lawrence Krubner · 2009/01/22

Lawrence says, 'However, I agree that Tanyalee's reasoning is flawed - marriage is a state matter and has nothing to do with religion.'

And, what 'reasoning' leads you to this conclusion, Larry? Could it be related to the thought that government preceded religion in the life of humanity, and therefore any institution of the human race is a creation of government?

Our founding fathers didn't want a totalitarian state which would repress minority religions to gain the support/vote of the people, and therefore control them. That was the motive and the very foundation of our nation; the banishment to the Americas of the Puritans and other religious minorities by a government which sponsored one religious cult, over all the rest ...

They certainly had no intention of banishing all religious belief from govrernment - which would perhaps be even less tolerant of human life under such a totalitarian, anti-religious regime (similar to the Great Communist Experiment of the failing USSR, Maoist China, Cuba, et al.)

Our national constitution provides the liberty so that the minority can attempt to repress the majority, and which the Left is anxious to manipulate in denying public displays of religiousity (if Christian) and attempting to misrepresent the role of religion in government. The atheists (that minority) in their startlingly zeal, similar to their counterpart religionists, join homosexuals in attempting to force government to abide by their view of life. 'Liberals' of government coddle their viewpoint for support/votes and in the hope of changing our constitution so that government can gain control of all the people, and no matter what those groups want themselves.

In doing so, they promote changes to the constitution as their goal, and as some political minorities hope to do; e.g., gun banners, electoral college haters, Global Warming nuts, atheists, homosexuals, and various other misanthropic groups and alliances. They want to literally destroy the document that provides the freedom of the minority to suit their self-blinded idiocies ...

Most of these tyranical wannabes label themselves as 'Liberals', and they certainly aren't in any way constitutionally 'Conservatives'.

They are the moths of politics, eating holes in Liberty's robe ...

#44 · tadowe · 2009/01/25

I semi-agree with you, Lawrence. I think civil unions are a state issue. The goverment should grant any one who wants a civil union license regardless of sexual preference.

Then it's up to each sect of each church to decide whether or not that civil union is also a marriage.

#45 · samiam · 2009/01/26

Sam thinks, '... civil unions are a state issue. The goverment should grant any one who wants a civil union license regardless of sexual preference.'

The state provides laws governing partnerships. Marriage is a seperate issue, and one which government's interest in is taxes.

Filing for marriage benefits (designed by nature, and sponsored by religion to foster the continuation of the human race) allows the state to tax and monitor taxation of those recognized marriage couples.

Since there are extensive and inclusive rules and laws governing formal partnerships (including survivor benefits, visitations, insurance, etc.), the motive for creating another form of 'marriage' (one designed by small human minority and the state in increasing taxation and monitoring of liberty) in order to fool the public into believing in imaginary rights - that homosexuality is a viable lifestyle, but which will demand increased medical care and special benefits for homosexual mutual masturbation (a lifestyle choice and not one designed by nature to advance/continue the human race.)

Indeed, and since all their demands, except adoption/fostering and federal survivor benefits (SSA/Welfare/Medicare), are already available in law -- it is clear that the political effort is to manipulate the majority into believing political lies and machiavellian chicanery.
Sam continues, 'Then it's up to each sect of each church to decide whether or not that civil union is also a marriage.'

You state the already obvious reality, and since the term 'marriage' would have to be re-defined in absurdity, if the state tries and make 'marriage' a synonym for marriage (with its benefit rights to promote future generations, not corrupt and belittle the present meaning of the word) and so that they can get increased benefits and promote homosexuality by example to any children they are allowed to corrupt in that way ...

#46 · tadowe · 2009/01/26

Seems like a sensible idea, SAMIAM. Actually, Alan Dershowitz proposed that very thing in an editorial ('To Fix Gay Dilemma, Government Should Quit the Marriage Business') in the LA Times back in 2003.

#47 · anon · 2009/01/26

i agree that gays shouldnt b allowed to get married bcuz marriage is a sacred institution between a man + a woman.

that has been proven 1 zillion times on shows like 'who wants to marry a multi-millionaire' and 'married by america' and 'the bachelor' and other tv shows where strangers -- straight people only! -- get married on television for the benefit of a reality show.

i would never want gays 2 enjoy that kind of sacredness!

#48 · droogie · 2009/01/26

It predates Dershowitz, Anon.

The idea is called MARRIAGE PRIVATIZATION, and it's been championed by Libertarians like myself for over a decade. David Boaz wrote a great piece in Slate back in 1997 about it.

Larry Elder wrote a great piece five years ago in Capitalism Magazine advocating the same idea.

Marriage is, of course, a contract. Free market Conservatives like me believe that no government and no religious organization should get in the way of two people who want to draw up a contract.

#49 · govtout · 2009/01/26

Govtout says, 'Marriage is, of course, a contract.'

If it were only about 'contract', then the USA already has more than adequate laws to support and defend contractual partnerships/agreements. So, the effort to to acquire some sort of invented 'right' of 'marriage'; e.g., Social Security (SS) and SS Survivor benefits, permission to adopt and make homosexual mutual masturbation an example of Nature's effort continue the species, the invented 'right' to be considered 'normal' and even respected as religiously 'correct' in their lifestyle choice, advanced medical care and treatment for their dangerous lifestyle choice, ad nauseam ...

'Free market Conservatives like me believe that no government and no religious organization should get in the way of two people who want to draw up a contract.'

As mentioned, the effort is to confirm that mutual masturbation between members of the same sex is 'normal' and a 'legitimate' reason to gain the benefits of 'marriage'. If it were otherwise, then the USA's partnership laws are more than adequate to protect their extremely small group, minority 'rights'.

#50 · tadowe · 2009/01/27

Interesting point, GOVTOUT.

It's weird that ultra-liberals and ultra-conservatives (at least Libertarians anyway) end up pro-gay marriage though they come at it from totally different perspectives. The liberals through the civil rights issues and the conservatives through the get-the-government-out-of-my-bedroom issues.

It's nice to see that though different groups take different routes, we all end up at the same finish line. Maybe this is the whole common-ground thing that Obama's been talking about!

#51 · govtout · 2009/01/27

i'm not a big fan of the gay lifestyle, but i'm one of those righties that end up on your side, anon.

as an old conservative i'm uncomfortable having the government create a list of acceptable sexual positions for married people and then using that list to decide who gets to call themselves 'married' and who is denied that right.

#52 · kraut · 2009/01/27

Kraut says, 'as an old conservative i'm uncomfortable having the government create a list of acceptable sexual positions for married people and then using that list to decide who gets to call themselves 'married' and who is denied that right.'

Marriage certainly predates puritan and victorian efforts by lawmakers (government) who attempted to use the law to force conformation to those moral codes they believed in, as a social majority.

How much more abhorrent than that government (lawmakers) force their minority moral code onto the majority?

Government did not create marriage, and has no real business messing around with a process of Nature/starkreality. 'Marriage' is a process to further the species and homosexuality is not!.

Legal partnerships allow homosexual couples all the rights of 'marriage', but none of the respect they hope to gain by legislation (government dictate). Government can't force that respect ... no matter how much sympathy any group of individuals may have for their fruitless plight.

In this case you are correct, Kraut, government shouldn't be in the business of deciding which method for 'getting-off' any couple chooses. In that, government shouldn't be trying to legislate that into some sort of 'right', and allowing all the benefits designed by Nature to promote

#53 · tadowe · 2009/01/28

For once you and I are in agreement, Kraut! No government - nor even a voter - can deny two people the right to marry! Even if those two people are of different races or similar genders. After all, no orifice is more holy than another.

Droogie might have been kidding, but he makes an excellent point - there's nothing particularly sacred about marriage anyway. Those reality TV shows he cites prove that. Plus the 60% divorce rate in the US adds to the evidence that straights don't hold marriage up as a sacred rite.

#54 · anon · 2009/01/28

i hate to say it, but i loved that 'married by america' show. the part with the hole through the sheet was hysterical.

#55 · kraut · 2009/01/28

... homosexual mutual masturbation ...

So not only are gays prohibited from calling their relationships 'marriage,' but they're also prohibited from the term sex?

Tough crowd.

#56 · Rogers Cadenhead · 2009/01/28

When you and I do it Rogers, it's called making love.

#57 · Anon · 2009/01/28

Rogers replies, 'So not only are gays prohibited from calling their relationships 'marriage,' but they're also prohibited from the term sex?'

Smiley!

This being your partisan confirmation that however much he perjured himself otherwise, Clinton's claim not to have had, '... 'sex' with that woman ...,' is quite literally true?

My contention is that any sexual stimulation, whether by oneself, or in partnership with any other individual/group/animal, is/meets the definition of sex.

And, who is it that is preventing them from the term sex? Your inference, or innuendo, is pretty vague, if not just an unthinking effort at ad hominem.

As for 'calling' their relationship 'marriage', what's the point of that? They can certainly already make that claim to their heart's content! Indeed, if they were serious about obtaining the benefits of partnership, they can already do that with *everthing* in a legal partnership; except, gain benfits designed to furher the human race and support those families in their generations.

If it were as simple as using the term 'marriage', then they can do that now, but it is actually an effort to force homosexual acceptance onto a 97-98% majority of the human race, and to force their 'respect' and to pay for benefits designed for the future ...

... not another minority trying to legislate 'respectability' and some invented 'right' to gain public benefits for their supposedly 'private' lifestyle ...

... really, why aren't Democrats trying for the term 'marriage' to apply to any expression of sexuality? Extending your illogic would make polygamy a 'right' of 'marriage', beastiality love however 'fruitless', pedophilia with an easy change to the 'legal' age ...

Where does a 'right' end for any couple, group, or cult of 'marriage'?

#58 · tadowe · 2009/01/28

Rex tries for 'nasty', 'Just because you and I engage in mutual masturbation doesn't mean we're gay, Tadowe!'

You may feel sexually stimulated by my rhetoric, Rex, but does that qualify for the 'right' of 'marriage' and to gain benefits designed to support procreation and the continuance of the species ...?

BTW, your form of 'debate' nauseates me with its leftist ignorance and efforts to force agreement via government. You should save your own personal attacks against me for someone who might actually be cowardly enough to be silenceby your inevitable calumny. I suggest you try someone who thinks of themself as a 'liberal'.

#59 · tadowe · 2009/01/28

Tad, you dumbass, I never typed that.

You have been duped, again.

For a 'smart' guy, you sure an easy mark.

#60 · Rex · 2009/01/28

Rex huffs and puffs, 'For a 'smart' guy, you sure an easy mark.'

I'm only about a million times smarter - and straighter - than you, Rex.

#61 · tadowe · 2009/01/28

Hmm, not Tad, but good effort.

#62 · Rex · 2009/01/28

Rex rants, 'Tad, you dumbass, I never typed that.'

Well, in that case, you are pointing your insult in the wrong direction. I've already made my opinion clear on the cavalier attitude Rogers holds in allowing this sort of plagiarizm to continue on here. I haven't seen the same lack of concern on his other sites where they protect identity ...

'You have been duped, again.'

No, you have been, and since my response addressed the 'subject', which so far you avoid (my response(s). Indeed, it is significant that you continue to treat this thread, and comment section, as an arena for your personal attacks - how is that different than the other 'Rex', and however sarcastic their intent may have been?

'For a 'smart' guy, you sure an easy mark.'

Make your mind up, Rex, either I'm a 'dumbass' or I'm 'smart' ... which is it?

Never mind, I already know, and since if I were the dumbass, then you'd have no trouble actually debating the subject(s) and contradicting my support for my opinion(s) ...

Instead, you will continue to whine because someone said something you'd have said ... otherwise, and pretend that you're the 'smart' one for thinking up such devastating insult of me as being at fault for someone else duping your nickname. Then, of course compliment them for copying my name:

Rex praises name-stealing, 'Hmm, not Tad, but good effort.'

You are an icon of duplicity, aren't you, Rex?

#63 · tadowe · 2009/01/29

You sure are an odd fella Tad.

Buy a cat, you need some love in your life.

#64 · Rex · 2009/01/29

'Rex' says, 'You sure are an odd fella Tad. Buy a cat, you need some love in your life.'

You sure are obsessed with putting-me-down, Rex. I appreciate your effort to demonstrate that my criticism(s) of Leftist/Democrat/liberal idiocy in debate are accurate.

Not many of you can get past this reflexive revelation of what poor character traits Leftists/Democrats/liberals posses, in general, what?

#65 · tadowe · 2009/01/29

Until I add user accounts to this blog, there's nothing I can do to stop people from spoofing each other in comments. If you continue to post here anyway, knowing that this is the case, that's not my problem.

#66 · Rogers Cadenhead · 2009/01/30

Rogers says, 'Until I add user accounts to this blog, there's nothing I can do to stop people from spoofing each other in comments.'

Until? It has been about 2 years since this subject first came up. How long does 'until' last? Must be pretty expensive to utilize this sort of utility, huh?

'If you continue to post here anyway, knowing that this is the case, that's not my problem.'

Neither is it mine. I don't care about nicknames being used for satire. I almost always reply to the subject(s)/points presented and will use any post to reason my opinion(s). However, it seems that quite a few of your correspondents complain, 'That's not me, that's an imposter!'

Indeed, they inevitably use someone else's plagiarism of their name to insult my replies! I love that because it demonstrates the nasty truth of 'liberalism' -- they aren't anything like sensitive and sympathetic; feeling-everyone's-pain. Instead, they are snide and vicious propagandists who can't do anything else but dehumanize their political opponents, personally.

Actually, if you want 'votes', make mine to keep the status quo, Rogers. Who knows, you might even find some Leftist/Democrat/liberal who can actually be humorous, or even biting, in mocking their hated political, subhuman opponents ...

You might even become the equivalent of 'Der Sturmer' Zeitung!

#67 · tadowe · 2009/01/30

Until? It has been about 2 years since this subject first came up. How long does 'until' last? Must be pretty expensive to utilize this sort of utility, huh?

I've never promised I would add user accounts to this blog. It's my personal site -- I add stuff when I feel like puttering around. Asking me when it's going to get done is like asking me when I'll clean the garage. But that's a question I only would take from my spouse, and as we've already established in this discussion, you and I can't get married.

#68 · Rogers Cadenhead · 2009/01/30

Eharmony Commercial Couples

Rogers says, 'I've never promised I would add user accounts to this blog. It's my personal site -- I add stuff when I feel like puttering around.'

I've just got through stating that I'm for the status quo, Rogers, and only mentioned that it has been about 2 years since OTHERS were complaining about name-stealing. You did, though indicate (if not using the word 'promise') to abide by the desires of the correspondents; a couple of whom indicated that they would like such 'protection'. There must have been more who 'voted' for the status quo, huh?

As mentioned, you can add my name to that list of those wanting to remain the same - I enjoy replying directly to those expostulations, satirical or not.

Rogers gets humorous, '... and as we've already established in this discussion, you and I can't get married.'

We don't need to, Rogers, and since it is Rex's angst over stolen nicknames, and not any of my supposed 'impatience' to force you to do anything, at any time. Besides, even if you wanted such a relationship, you're much too young for me ... no matter how good and skillful you might be at fruitless masturbation ...

Besides, 'we' could have all the benefits of marriage, except state and federal benefits meant to promote continuance of the species, by forming a legal, contractual partnership.

No need to misapply the meaning of 'marriage', in all its historical and pre-historical understanding, to homosexual mutual masturbation ...

#69 · tadowe · 2009/01/30

Speaking of couples, 'Michelle Obama's Pregnant!

I suspect the ugly truth to be that Natasha, Obama's daughter, is the one who is pregnant, and this fact is being covered-up to hide the that fact, and as well about who the 'real' father might be ...

Wouldn't you just love it, if all the major media and their talking-head leftists/democrats/liberals took up this propaganda like they did against Republican candidates for office ...?

That would surely give you all a taste of your own Goebbel's-like lies ... surprisingly found here (as being 'interesting') and on some other yellow-dog-democrat sites, too!

#70 · tadowe · 2009/01/30

And there goes Weepy Tom again. Too dumb to invent his own blog, he's gonna complain about the rules of Roger's.

'I wanna play baseball with you fellas. But I don't wanna have to run the whole base path! I wanna be able to run from first to third! Waaaaaaaa!'

#71 · anon · 2009/01/30

Someone says, 'And there goes Weepy Tom again. Too dumb to invent his own blog, he's gonna complain about the rules of Roger's.'

'Weepy Tom' is the pansy version of 'Stinking Juden', in reviling the person/group to gain some benefit. For this instance, I suspect the gelt is in feeding a personal hatred.

Indeed, this requires that this case of anonymity actually ignore what I did say, 'I vote for the status quo', in order to say that I 'whine' about it. This individual must actually lie and invent words to put in my mouth to demonstrate the duplicidous depths of their own personal angst concerning me:

Anon invents a lie, 'I wanna play baseball with you fellas. But I don't wanna have to run the whole base path! I wanna be able to run from first to third! Waaaaaaaa!'

I've addressed the subject of the thread in nearly every post I've made within it, but the neurotic hatred of this individual tries to say the exact opposite about that. All the replies to what I have commented on have been efforts to make me the subject (skipping the bases), while refusing to contradict the various points:

1. There is no 'right' to marriage ... by anyone ...

2. 'Marriage' has been defined since before history began as male and female

3. All the benefits of marriage are available to homosexual couples in the form of legal partnership, except for state and federal benefits designed to advance the family in their future generations, and in a (hoped for) stable marriage

4. Efforts to promote homosexual 'marriage' are attempts to force morality by legislation ... something Democrats/liberals and leftists deplore and revile when done by conservatives ...

... that makes them world class hypocrites, as well as being the epitomy of what 'Ugly American' means to the 97=98% of the rest of the Earth who happen to be heterosexual and where ALL the world's religions proselyte against the practice, and not just some chimera of respectability the Democrats/left try and force on the world: homosexual marriage ...

Come on back, though, and as everyone does, and make me your subject of 'interest'.

#72 · tadowe · 2009/01/31

I want to apologise to Rex for inferring that he was a
'Leftist/Democrat/liberal'. I forgot that he was actually a rightist/Republican/libertarian who argues like one, in part ...

#73 · tadowe · 2009/01/31

These two ignorant, self-serving pukes deserve each other. What a couple of e-douchebags!

#74 · Scott · 2009/02/03

I would like to inform you that My husband Joshua wrote a blog about prop 8 back in Oct.

#75 · visitor · 2009/03/02

As If I didn't already love Tanyalee, her comment just made me love her more.
Say YES to PROP 8!!!!

#76 · anna · 2009/06/17

I wonder how Joshua and Tanyalee's God feels about them being paid for participating in a commercial and other adds that lure unsuspecting people into joining eHarmony,only to find out that they've been duped.That alot of the 'matches' are not real,nor the profiles,and that eHarmony engages in such deceitful tactics in order to keep people's hopes up,and that they continue to take money from people long after said people have cancelled their membership,and give them the run-around when they try to stop their accounts from being charged and recoup their money.I wonder?

#77 · amrith obsidian · 2009/07/27

I see many people are still commenting and would like to make one note. Joshua and I did not make and money for doing the eHarmony commercial, nor did anyone in the commercials. We are a real couple who got asked to be in their commercial to give others hope on finding love... making some money would have been nice!!! but we didn't.

I hope that helps to others out writing about us No one is acting nor does anyone get paid!

hope all is well...
happy holiday seasons to all.

Tanyalee

#78 · Tanyalee · 2009/12/19

Why is this some kind of shocking thing? Every Eharmony commercial I've ever seen has the same type of couple.

One guy talks about how his Mom suggested he try Eharmony. Awkward for a grown man. Another one has a guy talking about how the woman he met on Eharmony believed in him so now he can believe in himself. That's kind of pathetic. Don't see that one too much anymore.

Eharmony Couples Dating

I think it's been clear for many years that Eharmony is for folks of a particular cultural make up and belief system, and the personality test weeds out folks who don't fall in that group.

I do believe their marketing is misleading. I believe that in this group you have folks that are so desperate for love, and they've invested so much time and money in the process that if they meet someone with enough in common who is equally desperate for love, and invested in Eharmony they are ripe for falling 'in love'.

We all know about the Eharmony 'success' stories. I'd be curious to know how many Eharmony couples end up breaking up in the first 8 years, which is basically no better than the national average.

Has anyone seen an Eharmony commercial with a couple that's been married for more than 2 or 3 years? Because their claim is they'll find the love of your life...so time will tell the true story of Eharmony and it's success couples.

Eharmony Test For Couples

#79 · petals121 · 2010/02/11

'The separation between church and state is not to keep the beliefs of the church out of our governing systems. Instead is to keep the governing systems out of the church.' gee, what planet are you from?

The founding fathers were well aware of having the church in government and that is why the separation of church and state was added. They wanted no part of a government that if you said the earth revolves around the sun you would wind up tied to a staked and toasted. Gee, that one religion that some would have you think this country was founded on has a very nasty past and track record with anyone that took issue with it. You can't be too proud. If you want to go out and worship a turnip as some kind of god, go ahead, the state doesn't care, same sex civil marriages, I don't care, the state shouldn't care, only when the 'church' comes in is there an issue, why, the church is crossing the line. The 'state' doesn't force any religion to recognize a same sex union, it leaves it up to them. The turnip worshipping, the same sex thing, doesn't pick my pocket or break my leg, I couldn't care less, the church crossing the line does.
PS, if you want to know what most of the founding father's religious beliefs were I suggest you google deism.

#80 · Methinks doth protest too much · 2011/06/25

Is it just me most ads has the male running his mouth while the female keeps respectably quiet, or in the background? Guess you need to meet that old GOP 1950s standards, hair pigtailed, barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen. Why do they seem to look like brother and sister? Look at the mouth, nose, ears of each couples, very creepy. What are some of those 29 points of compatibility? Do they come out an ask are you a homophobia or do they dance around it with subquestions to answer the phobia question to weed out people from the system and use the info to match likewise thinking individuals?

#81 · JR · 2011/06/26

Add a Comment

How Much Does Eharmony Charge Per Month

These HTML tags are permitted: <p>, <b>, <i>, <a>, and <blockquote>. A comment may not include more than three links. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA (for which the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply).