Talk:EHarmony/Archive 2

Title

Would the appropriate title be eHarmony or eHarmony.com? Rad Racer 22:09, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I heard rumors that eHarmony is a con, is their any notoriety of this? --SuperDude 02:14, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

I've heard similar rumors, that they're really no better/more accurate with their matches than any of the dozens of other matchmaking sites out there. eHarmony's biggest difference from the other sites seems to be their vastly superior marketing strategy (tv ads, infomercials, etc.). Dr Archeville 19:09, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I just obtained a new opinion about eHarmony, since it charges money, I find it to be fraudulent now. --SuperDude 00:36, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Hey, superdork, by your reasoning anyone who charges for their product is fraudulent. Get a life.I have subscribed to the service and love it--put $50 where your mouth is and then have an informed opinion.

There seems to be no clear criteria here for what any participant in the discussion considers to be a "con," other than charging money (which they've never claimed not to do). You might examine existing definitions to find answers to this question. For example, one definition would be if there were no people who had actually received the claimed services, despite paying for them (that one does not appear to be the case). Another definition would be if claims of refunds or simple cancellation were untrue; the answer to that one is more unclear from the article. Another would be if they purported to match people with compatible others, but actually just sent them a set of people without respect to the matching-process results; that one does not appear to be true, based on the information.

My point is, the question of "con" or "fraudulent" has some neutral/objective criteria (e.g., fraud can be a legal term) and that fact seems to be being ignored in the discussion. My own answer would be that based on different criteria and information, I don't think most people would consider it a "con" or a "fraud," but might consider it an organization with which they disagree or might question the degree of success as being lower than claimed or aided by factors they don't mention (such as eliminating beforehand groups unlikely to be successful).Lawikitejana 17:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Homosexuality

FM, yes Dr. Warren is an evangelical Christian. But show me a current link where he says that he uses those grounds to keep same-sex couples off of eHarmony. In the audio file that you added, he says nothing different from the press release... in fact he goes into detail describing how he assisted a team looking to make a homosexual-based matching site like eHarmony, AND he says that he wishes for homosexuals to be matched well. David Bergan 20:16, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Please. I see you've listened to the interview of Warren linked to in the article. It leaves no doubt that the he discriminates against homosexuals due to his conservative Christian pov. First he boasts that eHarmony accepts non-Christians, even Wiccans. When it's mentioned but not homosexuals, he tries to whitewash it with the excuse that they lack data on matching homosexuals. When it's noted that he likely lacks sufficient data on Wiccans as well yet still manages to accommodate them, he falters and falls back on lame excuses like homosexuality is "still illegal in many states", it's a divisive issue, they're outside of the mainstream, etc. It's clear his previous excuses are a whitewash for his religious bias. Both the man and organization owe their to current success to Focus on the Family who are adamantly opposed to homosexuality. Stop trying to assist in whitewashing the issue. FeloniousMonk 00:25, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

How about a link that says eHarmony is excluding homosexual matching based on their higher moral standard? Right now all you present is a conspiracy theory based on (a) guilt-by-association and (b) the genetic fallacy. In fact, if Warren was doing this out of a tone of moral superiority, don't you think he would take the opportunity to say that? If he really is trying to tell the world that being gay is a sin, he isn't furthering his agenda by cowardly hiding behind a "we don't have any research" excuse.

According to what you present as "evidence" eHarmony should exclude Wiccans. They too are definitely against Focus on the Family's agenda. But the fact that eHarmony enrolls as many people as it possibly can from all faiths (or the lack thereof) stands against your claims that eHarmony is trying to take any sort of religious stand.

He doesn't have the data. That's all there is to it, unless you can show some new evidence. David Bergan 04:15, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I see the your attempts at whitewashing of the painfully obvious and apologetics continues unabated from the ID and Antony Flew articles. The interview provided constitutes a primary source. The words contained therein are from Warren's own mouth and in his own voice. His stumbling for an explanation after having his illogic exposed is obvious. It doesn't get any more plain or compelling than that. Ignore it or mischaracterize it as a "conspiracy theory" if you choose to remain in denial, but don't expect others here will do so as well. FeloniousMonk 04:33, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

If you go back and check the Anthony Flew history, you'll remember that all it took was good links to convince me that I was ignorant. Heck, I even ordered the book to read the intro for myself and then I wrote out an outline of it conceding that his only remarks on ID were not favorable. I know that I am a fallible man, and I assure you that I am a reasonable man. But interpreting a pause in a radio interview as a right-wing agenda is not reasonable. If it is so painfully obvious that Warren is doing battle on this issue, then it should be easy to find better sources using actual words. David Bergan 05:23, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Which is what is provided in the article in the form of his recorded interview. Those are his own words. His interview is a primary source. No other support is needed to corroborate it; its veracity is self-evident. The statements made in it are unambiguous and support the statements that his religious views influence how he conducts business; the issue isn't even in doubt to anyone who looks at it objectively. FeloniousMonk 05:50, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

The recording did not say that Warren was excluding same-sex matches on the basis of his religious agenda. Looking at a discussion objectively and dispassionately does not lead one to conclude that he is hiding his real intent. The rule is to presume innocence until proven guilty. David Bergan 06:10, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, Warren was unambiguous in the interview on the topic of homosexuality. To argue other wise is to engage in dissembling. I've cited additional support, and I've got plenty more to back me up. FeloniousMonk 06:49, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

User:Dbergan stated in one message, "In fact, if Warren was doing this out of a tone of moral superiority, don't you think he would take the opportunity to say that?" I think a case can be made that he would not. After all, many who use the service would have a problem with the exclusion of same-sex couples on moral grounds and might be "turned off," yet would accept (or not notice) legal bases for rejecting those matches. Additionally, it may serve as a way to side-step objections of discrimination such as those raised in the March 2006 lawsuit by the man who was married but divorcing.

I am not accusing Warren of anything, only pointing out that there would in fact be a motive not to state openly a religious objection to matching same-sex couples, while still rejecting them. In this way, it is possible to distance the company from evangelical roots with those who would object, while not distancing it from the subset of evangelicals who oppose same-sex couples.

"The fact is that same-sex marriage in this country is largely illegal at this time, and we do try to match people for marriage." --Dr. Warren

Same-sex marriage was legalized across Canada by the Civil Marriage Act enacted on July 20, 2005 and eHarmony Canada does not match same-sex couples.

"We think the principles probably are different so we’ve never chosen to do it. And that’s the position we take." –Dr. Warren

eHarmony Labs, a research organization dedicated to the study of human relationships, does not seem to be researching same-sex relationships.

One thing that I keep coming back to on this issue is when did anyone start requiring a business to service a particular set of people? There is a great difference between discriminating and not providing service for a particular group. I worked for a company which provided technology services to medium and large businesses. It chose not to service the small business industry. It would be unfortunate if one sub-set of this group, say a minority owned small business, would contact our company and complain (or even litigate) that we are discriminating against her minority owned small business. It is nothing of the sort, the businesses primary target and specialty is in the medium to large business sector. How would this be different then a business such as eH which has targets a group of heterosexuals for their product? Lack of a service does not specifically constitute discrimination. Or how about a steak house "discriminating" against vegans for only offering main courses with meat -- it would be preposterous to claim that they were discriminating against one's religion.

Tiggerjay 02:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

What if it was interracial marriage? What if that was what they were choosing to block? People would be up in fucking arms. --Ragemanchoo (talk) 04:54, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Um...how about you let the courts decide if it's discrimination? Ok. In terms of this section on Wikipedia, did you notice it's under the subtitle "CRITICISM." Do you know what that means??? It means that since people criticize eHarmony for not offering services for gays and that has resulted not only in a SNL spoof, Chemistry.com commercials, and now a lawsuit you need to accept this is a valid section Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.135.57.32 (talk • contribs)

eHarmony is a private internet company and has no obligation to provide or not provide services to anyone, any time. It can reserve the right to only offer certain options if it so chooses. In addition, almost every other internet dating service offers same-sex matching options, rendering the entire lawsuit moot, as the person in question could have easily just chosen to use one of those, instead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manuelomar2001 (talk • contribs)

^That's neither here nor there. --Ragemanchoo (talk) 04:54, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Again, It is a private company and has every right to not assist Homosexuals. Regardless of what you believe, according to the Bible homosexuality IS as sin, and therefore eharmony is well within its right not to support it. Travis Cleveland (talk) 14:51, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Travis, um, yeah. The bible says a lot of things (nonsensical shellfish laws, crops, etc) and not very clearly. Also, Warren's shitty excuse for blocking gays from the service remains to be seen. The whole "well they can't get married, and since its illegal we'd be breaking the law" is NONSENSICAL. See: California, Massachusetts, New York, Canada, most of Europe. --Ragemanchoo (talk) 04:54, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

It is absurd that this is not neutrally addressed in the article. It is worth mentioning that multiple mainstream media sources have criticized eHarmony for not including matching for homosexuals. I've therefore put in two of many instances of this. It is tremendously biased to not include this widespread criticism, and this criticism is completely separate from the fact that the company is legally entitled to discriminate against homosexuals, let alone whatever bibles say.--Xris0 (talk) 04:58, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Christian company

What defines a "Christian company"? eHarmony is not an exclusively Christian service. The term "Christian company" probably is not synonymous with "Company that has a Christian as its founder and president." David Bergan 20:16, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

A "Christian company" is one that allows the personal religious beliefs of its constituents to influence its policies and operations. See the section directly above if you need further clarification as to what constitutes religious beliefs influencing policies and operations. FeloniousMonk 00:42, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

No evidence that this is a "Christian" company. It has Christian employees. Sure. I bet the ACLU does, too. If the only evidence of eHarmony being a "Christian" company is that it started on a Focus on the Family broadcast and that it excludes homosexuals, that's not sufficient. FOTF was a marketing opportunity, that many publicity-related businesses would love to have. So all you have is their homosexual policy: making them perhaps an "anti-homosexual" company , but you surely cannot make the link that "anti-homosexual" equates to "Christian". Many Christians accept homosexuality. Many other religions reject it (ie Islam, Judaism, Mormonism). To take one piece of their policy (which has a very logical reason behind it: they don't have the data for homosexual matching) and label it with a vast, complex, and diverse religion is a hasty generalization.

Moreover a consistently "Christian company" wouldn't match people of other faiths, and yet they do. If they have a Christian agenda, they would exclude atheists and make sure everyone prays to Jesus before sending them matches. David Bergan 04:32, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Right. Stop denying the readily apparent. Listen to the interview. In it, Warren wears his faith on his sleeve. Warren is the former dean and psychologist at Fuller Theological Seminary. He holds a Master of Divinity degree from Princeton Theological Seminary. He's wrote and published "God Said It, Don’t Sweat It." He's very active in the Christian ministry and his Christian oriented publications. And his company's policies mirror those of the Christian right. Now you'd have us believe that's all just a coincidence and not connected in any way. Please...

His company is no more likely to exclude atheists and Jews than it any other evangelical organization. It fact less so, as it views them not as potential converts, but as paying customers. Citing that it doesn't exclude those of other faiths or no faith as proof it is not Christian is flawed logic. The Salvation Army, an overtly Christian organization, offers its services to all others as well. The obvious difference being the Salvation Army doesn't ask you if you're gay before you are served. FeloniousMonk 05:41, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Which makes me much more inclined to call the Salvation Army a "Christian" organization because it does reach out to all people (including homosexuals). Inclusion is a Christian (ie Christ-like) concept. So if eHarmony accepted homosexuals, in my mind it would be a better candidate for the Christian label.

But all this is seemingly irrelevant because essential Christian doctrine isn't even considered: (a) the Incarnation, (b) the resurrection, (c) substitutional atonement, etc. Homosexuality is a very fringe, and heavily disputed belief among Christians by comparison, and using that as the sole criterion is unjustifiable.

I don't doubt that Dr. Warren believes in the creeds and a, b, c. But so did Al Capone. Meaning... we don't call an exclusionary outfit "Christian" just because the boss is Christian. It needs something like the mention of Christ in its mission statement or articles of incorporation to merit that classification; which is why the Salvation Army and Lutheran Social Services are Christian organizations. David Bergan 06:10, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't find your logic here compelling. Especially when compared to the simple, clear evidence of Warren's own words. The man's background is unambiguously Christian; he states as much in numerous interviews. But since you're in deep denial, I've simply added more supporting links, including FotF's James Dobson, his former backer, attributing his support for Warren and eHarmony: "he was and it was decidedly Christian in nature." FeloniousMonk 06:59, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I think that FM has a pretty weak understanding of corporations. A corporation is defined by its mission statement, vision statement, and corporate activities. The makeup of its founder, officers, board, and customers are relevant, but only in the sense that they shape the direction the company takes. The identities and characteristics of corporations are legally and by definition independent from the persons who run the company. Unless eHarmony's mission statement, articles of incorporation, and other legal and corporate documents suggested that it self-identified as a "Christian" company, I would have a hard time understanding it as such. I am removing the "Christian Company" category. Almondwine 19:22, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there's any black-and-white way to define a "Christian company." FeloniousMonk wrote "A Christian company is one that allows the personal religious beliefs of its constituents to influence its policies and operations." That's fine up to a point, but personal religious beliefs are not always a separable part of one's personality. If you live in a Christian culture, your whole personality and attitude to life will be influenced by Christian doctrine. The same problem arises in the constitutional church-state separation of the United States: ultimately you cannot expect political leaders to dissociate their policy decisions from their personality, which may be a personality shaped by religion. The authors of the US Constitution had their own beliefs too, and I bet those beliefs influenced the Constitution at some level. You can expect some level of separation, but there's no way to define absolute separation. Of course eHarmony was influenced by Christian values, regardless of whether its corporate documents acknowledge them. We can argue endlessly whether this makes it a "Christian" company, just as one can argue whether the United States is a "Christian" nation; ultimately the answers to these questions will boil down to arbitrary definitions based on personal agendas. Mtford 18:02, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps calling EHarmony a "Christian-based company" or "Christian-owned company" (is that still accurate?) would be more accurate as it describes what the company's basis is and/or who owns the company. WAVY 10 18:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

And "a far-right Christian company" would be even more accurate still. But maybe redundant, too. --Ragemanchoo (talk) 04:55, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Point by point

1) The company has no political involvement, now

Taken from the article: "The services offered by eHarmony remain in step with the Christian right's social agenda; for example, eHarmony does not offer services to those seeking same-sex partners."

At the end of the Salon article, Warren says very clearly that eHarmony is not a politically-minded business. They split from FotF because they want to distance themselves from FotF's politics.

Before I even murmured James Dobson's name, Warren was anxious to proclaim his distance from his friend and former associate. "I have a lot of respect for a lot that goes on in Focus on the Family," he said. "Where I get nervous is when people think we're political like Focus on the Family. You kind of have to trust me on this, I guess, but we don't talk about things like abortion. I wouldn't have the slightest idea where our employees would stand on that issue." [1]

It would be factual to claim that eHarmony was tied to FotF, but the situation is different now. They are separate, and eHarmony chose to go this way because they don't want to have the stain of political involvement on their company's reputation. Therefore, the fact is that they currently are not politically motivated. David Bergan 14:42, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Stop the dissembling. Your history of pov promotion and dissembling at Wikipedia is well documented. Wasting the time of others with tendentious objections is highly frowned upon by the community.

That said-- eHarmony's business policies align with those of the Christian right. This is a factual, well-supported observation. Noting it in the article it is merely making a descriptive statement. The statement does not claim that eHarmony is political; it merely notes a simple fact lets the readers decide for themselves. The additional supporting links I've added, including the one to the Salon.com article you deleted, all support the statement that Warren has been influenced by his evangelical roots, which are in turn reflected in eHarmony's business practices. FeloniousMonk 19:01, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

FeloniousMonk, that statement sounds like original research which is not allowed on wikipedia. Do you have a credible link that these services follow the Christian right agenda? Not to mention that I had no idea that fostering relationships was only promoted by the Christian right. I guess that means I should tell all my liberal athiest friends that they need to get divorced. After all, that's not what their side stands for, right?TheCommodore7 (talk) 15:02, 20 November 2007 (UTC)